Final Game, Set, Match: Anand!

Long live the King!

Congratulations to Vishy Anand for outstanding performance in Sofia!

What a match! Kudos to the 2 great competitors. What a treat it was all the way!!

Congratulations, World multiple Champ Anand!!

Hi Mig,

I'm great admirer of your articles.

All supporters of Anand a big thank you to you all. We have Vishy defending his title successfully and am so happy.

Thomas, d_tal and many others who were ardent supporters of anand.

Wishing you all the best Anand!

Anand a humble giant.

Thank you!

Congrats, Vishy!

Congrats to both players for a great match, and of course to Anand for clinching what, on the balance of play, was probably a deserved victory!

The post-mortem at the end was interesting - I wonder if Topalov was explaining just what he'd missed, though Anand seemed to take a while to grasp it!

Congratulations Anand, for defending the title once again!

Now we know why top GMs like Kramnik and others, along with many ordinary people, said before the match that Anand is better than Topalov.

anyone kind enough to post the moves? cant find it

It was very bitter fight throughout the match. Hope they return to being friends. And I hope, so do their fans.

I like Topa, I hope Danailov wasn't around so that I could support Topa more. I am a hardcore Anand supporter and part of that is because I feel Anand embodies goodness. I feel as if I won with Anand. He shows that good guys need not finish last :).

It's okay for Topalov to go about playing riskily and deliberately unbalancing positions against other GMs thus gaining the sobriquet 'attacking player' et al, but to do it against the calibre of Vishy Anand given is ability to defend as well as attack he would be found out in the end.

And so he was!

Still, all credit to Topalov for putting up a fight.

BIG thanks to everyone in the comments who turned this into a real live and post-game event coverage site despite my near-total abdication on several days due to work and the new baby (who is doing great). Analysis, translations, links, really fantastic. It's an honor to pay your hosting bills!

Fantastic match!

ANAND!!!

Hmmm. I'm usually not into omens - but I ordered a championship set, just like the one they were using in the match, as the WCC began. It got delayed by the volcano and arrived today.
As I was rooting for Anand, I took it as an omen that he'd win, and that he did.

What a final game. Too bad about the 32. fxe4, but as I was rooting for Anand I'm not complaining!

Congrats to the organizers and the two players. This has been fun!

Congrats are also in order to Topalov, who played a hard fought, high class match. Minor shenanigans from Danilov can be forgiven.

Great match. Looking forward for Anand-Gelfand or Anand-Aronian.

Great match, not perfect play (as if) but lots of willpower on display throughout. Congrats Anand!

What a great match. Congratulations to Anand for winning. And Topalov fought like a true warrior. It will be interesting to see how Anand ranks among the other world champions over time.

Very exciting games all around. Topa plays exciting chess. I hoped to see an e4 at some point. :(

Where can I see the post-game press conference?

Many congrats to vishy. What a match and what a win in the last game. It was great to see them analyze for a short while after the game. They have spoken for the first time after probably a year.

Ok next match Anand-Carlsen 7-5.

We had not seen - and enjoyed - this much drama since the days of Kasparov-Karpov.

An incredibly exciting match. The chess was truly excellent, given that it was only the computers - not the humans by themselves - that could accurately point out the errors. And even then, it was very complicated, as in the missed Anand win(s) in game 8 or 9 (the one pitting two rooks plus knight against queeen).

Coming up in 2012 (hopefully before Dec of that year when the world is supposed to end):

Anand (wcc) vs Kasparov (challenger) - Part II

(Kasparov represented by Carlsen)

Can hardly wait for that :)

[Event "World Chess Championship"]
[Site "Sofia/Bulgaria"]
[Date "2010.05.11"]
[Round "12"]
[White "Topalov, Veselin"]
[Black "Anand, Viswanathan"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2805"]
[BlackElo "2787"]
[EventType "match"]
[EventRounds "12"]
[EventCountry "BUL"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 O-O 7. e3 Ne4 8. Bxe7
Qxe7 9. Rc1 c6 10. Be2 Nxc3 11. Rxc3 dxc4 12. Bxc4 Nd7 13. O-O b6 14. Bd3 c5
15. Be4 Rb8 16. Qc2 Nf6 17. dxc5 Nxe4 18. Qxe4 bxc5 19. Qc2 Bb7 20. Nd2 Rfd8
21. f3 Ba6 22. Rf2 Rd7 23. g3 Rbd8 24. Kg2 Bd3 25. Qc1 Ba6 26. Ra3 Bb7 27. Nb3
Rc7 28. Na5 Ba8 29. Nc4 e5 30. e4 f5 31. exf5 e4 32. fxe4 Qxe4+ 33. Kh3 Rd4 34.
Ne3 Qe8 35. g4 h5 36. Kh4 g5+ 37. fxg6 Qxg6 38. Qf1 Rxg4+ 39. Kh3 Re7 40. Rf8+
Kg7 41. Nf5+ Kh7 42. Rg3 Rxg3+ 43. hxg3 Qg4+ 44. Kh2 Re2+ 45. Kg1 Rg2+ 46. Qxg2
Bxg2 47. Kxg2 Qe2+ 48. Kh3 c4 49. a4 a5 50. Rf6 Kg8 51. Nh6+ Kg7 52. Rb6 Qe4
53. Kh2 Kh7 54. Rd6 Qe5 55. Nf7 Qxb2+ 56. Kh3 Qg7 0-1

A great day for Chess. Even better, all talk of the FIDE WC line is now permanently dead. What a wonderful result.

Congrats Anand!! Great performance!! It was a great match with lot of fighting chess!! Commiserations to Topalov,fought hard but was not good enough.

Anand's defense of the title is truly remarkable in that he has beaten Kramnik and now Topalov; When commentators talked about playing styles, I think Anand will become synonymous with a truly universal style

Anand, at 40, is losing neurons by the day. It is in his interest to arrange the next WC defense as soon as possible. Within one year if possible. After about 2 years, I predict that he will have declined enough to lose to any of Carlsen, Kramnik, or Topalov, simply based on blunders.

Nice game, I truly enjoyed Topalov's aggressivenss today.
Memorable the e:f5, f:e4 -Kamikadze Attack (it is called "opening the long diagonal for your opponent's bishop to attack". Sad but he never made it to the deck, he was shot down in the air while screaming "Long Live the Emperor Anand!"

I can imagine Kramnik smiling somewhere on the planet :).

BTW, any authentic information about Anand's team, finally?

Kasparov joined Shipov for the final moments (as if Topalov didn't have enough problems!) and had some interesting comments afterwards:

"In a conversation after the game Kasparov said that he considered the defining moment of the match the 10th and 11th games, when the Bulgarian challenger had the initiative and could have taken the lead. Chess isn't football, but in chess as well if you don't take your chances, you lose... Garry said that he didn't like Anand's opening preparation. With black, in his opinion, it was only in the last game that Vishy chose what he should have played for the whole match - something suiting his style. However, Kasparov emphasised that Anand understands chess better than Topalov, and squeezed out a win on account of his class. Veselin was let down by a computer style of thought..."

http://online2.crestbook.com/antop10-12.htm

Who is mishanp?,....full name please...thanks..

Long live the King ! ANAND

Great victory for Anand. He showed a lot of fight, coming right back after the Game 1 disaster. Topalov played at a high level, then today was unrecognizable. If you showed the game to a random group of GMs that hadn't already seen it, I doubt any of them would guess Topalov was playing white. I think 30.e4? was the turning point - it practically forces black to open up the diagonal with ...f5, etc.

Vishy flushes Topolov and Danailov!

I think we'll see Topalov in WCC match play again. Of course, I also predicted that Topalov would win this match.

Congrats to Anand. Great and intensive match, although I had really hoped for some e4 fireworks between these two attractive players.

From chessdom site
Anand says this is the toughest match experience for him.this morning he expected that tiebreaks will be most likely outcome, but now he is obviously relieved
Anand thinks that Ra3 was not the best, but the game was still unclear
Anand says he almost had a heart attack when he saw Rf8+ Kh7 Rh8+ but, luckily, he had Kg7-Kh7

Cant believe we have no more matches .
Nevertheless , a great result for Anand fans .
I am really a Topa fan from now , and will try to forget toiletgate . Mig, your blogs been great with good comments . Now looking for something else to look forward to :)

Is there any way I can view the post-G12 press conference on video (I presume by now it must be over). I went to the official site, but couldn't find any video link. Thanks

Anand played well, but really Topalov played well below the level of a champion. The last game with white was probably the most pathetic by someone playing for the WC with white in the last round not only in a WC but in a swiss, truly weak. But his Sofia rules, that is where he can hang his hat.

Congratulations to Anand for a very convincing win! Topalov fan here, but I think it is undeniable Anand was better in this match. This was probably the most exciting match since the days of Karpov-Kasparov.

Many thanks to Topalov as well for making this what Anand called his toughest match experience. May we always experience such fighting chess at the World Championship level.

I hope all Anand fans will finally give Topalov credit for helping create this absolutely fantastic match!

Can someone tell me where to see the press conference and the post match ceremony?

Congratulations to Vishy Anand for outstanding performance .

Hi Mig, I think that "gaff" is the big hook/pole you use to lift a fish that is too heavy for your fishing line, and "gaffe" means a mistake...

I completely agree about this being a legitimate event coverage site; it was the best option for me this morning when I was on a commuter train. Thanks everyone!

I'm looking forward to the press conference and post-match interviews regarding the players' honest opinions about the games, their preperation and team members. Any secret seconds we didn't know about?

I would root for Topalov
if there weren't such a player
as Anand!
Congratulations to
Aruna, Vishy
and miriads of their fans!!!

Mig suggested before the match that if Anand wins, "...Anand will achieve status as something more than a post-Kasparov, pre-Carlsen primus inter pares figure." I think this is what will happen, and Anand will be considered the best player in the post-Kasparov era.

this is devastating to topalov historically. he went from being a 'world champion' to being just the guy that won a strong tournament to be a temporary faux-champion.

one match loss, with the assistance of danailov created controversies, and he still had some case to make. but two match losses, and his legacy is simply not what it could have been.

the only thing different about his "WC" than khalifman's or kasimjanov's is that he has a loud mouth bossy manager who made him more of a spectacle, and kept him relevant.

he is simply another of the super gms now. one that lucked, and manipulated, into a great many opportunities, but was incapable of capitalizing on them.

Congrats to Anand for a woinderful, deserving victory. Instead of calling this LAsker's QGD, I'm going to call it Anand's Black Catalan considering the powerful light square Black bishop on the a8-h1 diagonal that helped bring home the full point.

My congrats to Topalov as well for displaying a fighting spirit and playing aggressively. Many thanks to the organizers for putting on a great show and being a good host!

With this match, though Topalov lost, I think he permanently erased any bad feelings that were harbored against him following his WC match against Kramnik at Elista.

Great day for Chess!

Vishy Anand Rules Sophia !

Anand learned from Kramnik's match in 2006. Don't get a clear lead against topalov or his team will come up with dirty tricks. So Anand was careful to never be up by more than 2 points and he waited till the end to give the final blow, no time left for candidates' dirty tricks.

A lot of knowledgeable chess fans here, so I thought I woudl toss this question out. Anand showed in this match that he can win with 1. d4 at the highest level. For those of us who have been following his career, Anand used to be known as a 1. e4 player almost throughout.

Topalov on the other hand seems comfortable only with 1. d4.

Now for the question. I am wondering which is par for the course at the super-GM level i.e. are the other super GMs (2700+) partial to an opening, or are they versatile with their choice of first move? (Again, this only refers to choice of opening as White).

Congrats to Anand! Thanks to Topalov for a great and honest fight!

Two more thoughts:

- Is there anyone left who claims that the world champion should NOT be decided by a match?

- Is there anyone left who thinks that the real line of world champions is anything other than ...Fischer-Karpov-Kasparov-Kramnik-Anand ?

decisive games in the match before today:
2^0, 2^1, 2^2, 2^3

thankfully today wasn't a draw else the next decisive game would only have been 2^4 (ie, 4th rapid game) :-)

Topa will probably never realize his dream of becoming world champion. However, I hope history will give him credit for keeping chess alive in the age of the super-draw. Can anyone imagine the last 15 years without Topalov, Moro and Aronian?

Topalov has been the most exciting (not necessarily the best) player of the last 15 years. I admire Topa and his uncompromising style as much as I despise the games of Leko, Svidler, Kamsky, Ponomariov and several other talentless technicians populating the top of the rating list.

My hat off to Anand and Topa for a most exciting match.

The winner (and STILL champion) Viswanathan Anand! Bravo! Bravo!

Was a great match to watch.

Anand! I am glad his reign continues! Anand played better chess in the match. It was almost surprising that Topalov managed to bring it to the last game. When it comes to the future, hopefully the next challenger is Carlsen, Kramnik...or Ivanchuk (pretty remote I know)!

I hope to see some comments from Manu

HEARTY CONGRATULATIONS TO V.ANAND FOR A GREAT VICTORY!!

To win the last game with black is truly a match victory achieved in great Style!

Congratulations to Topalov too, for putting up a great, fighting performance!

It made this match arguably one of the most interesting WCC matches ever! Along with the first Fisher-Spassky and the Kasparaov-Karpov matches.

But unlike those two matches, this one was fought clean without too much off-board events. So it gains some extra points.

Losing the first game after an apparent mix-up in move order early in the game (I await to hear the 'truth' about this from Anand about this now) was a tremendous set back for Anand.

So, his taking the lead by G4 was a GREAT PERFORMANCE by Anand.

After that, G5-G11 were truly well fought by both.

Topalov probably had no other choice than to self-impose the so-called Sofia-rules on himself, because to accept draws in balanced/sharp positions would have left him with very low probablity to win the match. Nevertheless, it made the match most interesting, so points to him on this count.

Anand showed that he also truly played as per the spirit of the Sofia-rules, going for complications willingly and slugging it out. Since that is a 'new' Anand on display, and since he came out successful at the end, Anand gets even more points on this count, and that made the match truly exciting and memorable.

Thank God, Danilov did not (get the chance?) to bring in any off-board scandals, vitiating the exciting match.

I am now tending to give some credence to Topy's (not Danilov's) claim that he was truly disturbed by Kramnik's frequent and 'long' visits to the toilet. Let us hope T & K will now put the toilet-gate behind and start shaking hands once again in their encounters.

Kramnik said pre-match that Anand is the better player, but playing in Bulgaria was too much of a handicap, that he (Kramnik) himself would not have played there against Topy (FIDE rules allows such a refusal) and he nevertheless hoped Anand would triumph "for the good of chess". So hope he is now happy, as I am, although I am not sure how much truth is in the claim that Topy winning might be 'bad' for chess.

It seems clear that in some ephemeral sense Anand was the "better" player- we now have Kaspy's opinion that Anand understands chess better than Topalov - and so we ALL can rejoice that the better player won.

I think 12/14/16 game matches (24- seems now out of possibility for ever) are all about the same, though undoubtedly more the merrier.

It seems besides boundless energy and aggressive risk-taking play, Topy has to clearly go up a notch in some deep sense in order to become a WCC, if ever. Here is to hoping that Topalov takes this defeat in his stride and continues to play chess with improvement to be a great force in chess.

Anand said in a pre-match interview that he has "come to play chess in Bulgaria" and precisely did that. He also had to face great difficulties to make it to the match on time due to force de-majure, did not get the postponement he asked for, yet took it in its stride and played the match with great spirit and fire.

Nor has he so far not dodged any challenge. It was greatly sportive of him to have agreed to play in Bulgaria and WIN this match.

All this makes Anand now undeniably one of the GREATEST WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONS ever in the history.

Now I look forward to be able to view at some point the full video of the post-G12 discussions and post-match ceremony. Hope FIDE will put it up in full. Otherwise, we would have to settle for measly coverage at echeuqe (relatively to my expectations that is).

Not bad a performance from Aruna Anand as his chess manager for the first time. She has acquitted herself very well. Apparently she has carried out her job with great competence, and didn't commit any faux-paus, or create any unwanted drama off-stage. So, congratulations to her too.

Good online coverage all around - by Shipov, Chessdom, Polgar and Short. I have listed them by rank :)

Good real-time comments and enthusiastic following at MIG's site!!

On the whole, a great, great chess festival for the modern times!!

Long Live the present King of Chess, V. ANAND !!

So, on the whole

Liveratings now shows Anand at 2799.8. Not good enough today for 0.2 more points ;)

link to post-match conference please?

this link does not have it yet.
http://www.anand-topalov.com/en/results.html

I think this is OTB: "All this makes Anand now undeniably one of the GREATEST WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONS ever in the history."
However he deserves to be better than Kramnik, second to Kasparov in recent champions. But how can I compare them when one played 24 game or more WC and the other is forced to play these shorter versions of the game!

A nice translation of GM Shipov's analysis and comments:

http://www.danamackenzie.com/blog/?p=820

I missed that "one". Yes, he is one of them, after Kaspy (who got away lucky at times by not having to play world championship matches frequently).

I unfortunately missed the end of the game (on youtube, anyone??). From Marc Crowther on TWIC:

"And here Topalov shook hands and resigned the game and match. Topalov started an animated and friendly conversation discussing lines from the game with Anand as they signed the scoresheets and for a short while afterwards. Topalov then shook hands with his opponent once again before leaving the stage. In the last moments of disappointment he behaved with perfect sportsmanship."

Remember this if you think ill of Topalov. I for one am full of admiration for his behaviour here. When first I played competitive Chess, aeons ago, in school, or any kind of competitive sport, I learnt to look my opponent in the eye after a loss and shake hands, even if I felt like dying inside. This is a lesson well learnt by all kids, i.e. you have to know how to lose, because in life, you tend to lose as often as you win at the very least. So often nowadays you find ill mannered louts who masquerade as great sportsman in various sports, football, basketball, hockey, you name it, but who don't know how to be gracious in victory or in defeat.

Mig - No need to apologize for your posting Mig, it's been excellent. And considering all that you have going on right now, especially with a new baby (and second child), I'd say the only thing more heroic than Anand's win has been your efforts! Thank you!

Good game again. Terribly good match it has been.
Topalov has been outplayed from about equal positions quite consistently, that makes Anand the logical winner. I think the combination of quality and endurance was outstanding. I can't remember a match where both players showed so clearly they wanted to win.
Thanks for the blog. I couldn't follow most games live. The comments section became my first stop to re-live how it went, even before the notation.

Now please give that wild card to eiter Sasha or Chucky !

So, kamsky is getting ANOTHER shot at this?? geez!

Great job Danialov!
Thank you for making us focus only on the chess games between the players and appreciate them instead of spending time on anything else!
You played all the 12 games wonderfully :)

Topalov never deserved to get this shot at Anand ahead of other, and that too after being defeated by Kramnik at Elista!

It is one thing for Topalov and team to parachute directly as a challenger to Anand by fixing up a dubious match with Kamsky out of the blue, and Kamsky had retired from active chess for close to a decade, and now to give Kamsky another shot at being a candidate?!!!!

MAchinations of Danilov ensured that Topalov got a chance to face Anand even after being defeated by Kramnik, and the lining up of a semi-retired scapegoat - Kamsky. Laughable.

Super enjoyable chess for us fans. Great job by the players and the organizers. The webcam was cool.

After such a great fight, bummer that someone has to lose. If the match was over after Game 4, I wouldn't feel bad for Topalov. However, he fought back valiantly. Anand fought back well too with the black pieces.

Sorry for repeatedly bothering you guys, but can someone point me to a site with the press conference? The official anand-topalov.com hasn't loaded it yet!

d_tal, well put.

Topalov extended his hands, then discussed the position briefly with Anand, then extended his hands again.

This after coming within half a point of the World Championship title... and seeing it slip away a second time.

Anand, of course, is always a gentleman.

Hope both of them continue to play well.

ah well, i posted a link for a comment. anyway chessvibes quoted those press conf answers

http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/wch-g12-anand-beats-topalov-retains-world-title/

Congrats to Anand! He has defended his title twice!! Wonder how many other WCs have done that?

Also, will Anand finally reveal who his seconds were? Would appreciate links to the press conference.

Kapalik

1. Game of the match: Game 7 when Anand cracked Topalov's preparation OTB
2. Move of the match: Rd2! offering a pawn to Topalov and ending up with a draw

I think game of the match was game 4, and I say this as a Topalov fan.

Move of the match 22.Ng4! from that same game with the plan to sacrifice on h6!! Truly immortal stuff from Anand.

Oh yeah, it is all very convenient for Kaspy to back off from defending his title citing lack of sponsors. How convenient :-)

And so he gets to hide his FIDE WCC title in his attic from 1995-2000 using this very convenient excuse!!!!

And who does he get to face, the fresh-faced raw blokes Kasimzhanov and Ponomariov of all people! One-time flukes if there were any! And he doesn't let them challenge him on the flimsy excuse of lack of sponsors. Maybe Kaspy quoted high to ensure that no one came forward. Haha, when did Kaspy begin to boast of his victory over Short, the Short who barely ever won any worthwhile tournament.

Unlike Anand who bested two seasoned, proven, and formidable opponents in Kramnik and Topalov, Kasparov only had Karpov to show for his efforts. The rest were too green in chess to be of any quality opposition.

Kasparov was a Home Prep player, never great OTB, so when faced against Kramin (his second in his match-up against Anand in 1995) Kasparov promptly lost because Kramnik had a first-hand knowledge of Kasparov's home prep.

And it is strange, isn't it that despite Anand being the most eligible challenger in the latter half of 1990s and the decade 2000, Kasparov never agreed to a rematch with Anand in a 12/16 match series.

The thing is Kasparov gamed the system and got away with it.

Judging from Shipov's comments, today Topalov played too fast at critical junctures. Is it fair to say that this tendency- which served him well in his last tournament appearance - cost him dearly overall here? Sub-optimal moves played quickly in the hope of gaining time and outplaying his opponent in the complications with a time advantage. Maybe Kramnik has a point about this dodgy playing style working against 2700s but not against the very top players. Of course this is relative and I mean no disrespect to this brilliant player, who has already contributed so much.
As someone mentioned, the pressure must have got to him. Breaking open his kingside like that just looked like madness! Even I, a rotten patzer, would never have dreamed of allowing it. Some incredible misconception must have lured him. Then rising panic as he realizes that his dreams are going up in somoke! Congratulations to him for putting up a royal fight up till then, being the champ isn't everything -I'm sure Vishy also sees the dark side with this eternal preparation -and there's many a tournament still to be won! In the modern era of supergrandmasters he's just unfortunate to have lived in the era of a select few others who made it that little bit farther. The stronger the competition at the top the higher quality chess we all get to enjoy as the top players fight pitched battles for supremacy! Great match! My only question: did Anand's Semi-Slav books fall out of the back of the van??

And might I register my annoyance with people dragging up that damn Kasparov-avoided-a-match merry-go-round AGAIN. Nobody wants to hear it today(or ever, really), do us all a favour and give it a rest, eh?

Just as he hit
The ground
They lowered a tow that
Stuck in his neck to the gills
Fragments of sobriquets
riddle me this
three half eaten corneas
who hit the aureole
Stalk the ground
Stalk the ground
You should have seen
The curse that flew right by you
Page of concrete
Stained walks crutch in hobbled sway
Auto-da-fé
A capillary hint of red
Only this manupod
Crescent in shape has escaped

Congrats Vishy! , ggs both of you.
Topa must not forget that Anand also lost 2 WCH matches before this, and try to take the proper measures to be back in the mood 4 the candidates ...

Sigh

from the official website news report proclaiming Anand's retention of the title:

http://www.anand-topalov.com/en/news&article_id=120.html

After 26. Ra3 was played, Shipov forecast that Topalov might be hoist with his own petard by declining the quick draw that the position warranted: "This is psychology. It would have been hard for Topalov to return his queen to c2, because he is not yet ready to openly admit that he would not be against a draw in this seemingly dangerous position for White. Again the “Sofia” rules are hindering him."

While admittedly the conduct of the match was better than Elista's toiletgate, there was plainly some sustained obnoxiousness by Topalov and the organizers regarding the Sophia Rules, and this bad choice by Topalov in the final game brought about some poetic justice in this regard.

While I do not think that Topalov plays at the same level as Anand, Kramnik or Carlsen, I nonetheless applaud his considerable skills and particularly his style, which at many times in this computer era serves to put his opponents into positions that prove that they are all too human.

. . . Now, if we could only get Karpov elected, all would be right in the chess world.

Congratulations to the World Champion for retaining his title, with the same class on and off the board he always displays!

Glad Topalov cracked under pressure (the ghost of the rapid games!). As Nigel Short and various top GMs have commented, his understanding of chess is probalby not at the same level. But he did fight bravely, and I have to admit I was surprised the Bulgarian hosts acted with reasonable sportsmanship ("as soon the chess began", as Vishy pointed out).

This, as John Fernandez wrote, is specially important from a historical perspective because it finally (I hope) closes down the Fide-WC loophole! We should now have fairer and more rational cycles.

Chessbase analysis by Giri has it spot on after Anand's 46..Bxg2

"At this point, some people got very nervous, screaming that they had found a draw, The calm World Champion, however, had seen everything in advance."

One of them was Susan Polgar in her blog who gave Topalov's 47.Kxf2 a double ?? (and then later changed it) saying Rf7+ was the way to go. All computers initially think Rf7+ is a draw since they have to see beyond the horizon to see that the pawn endgame is dead lost.

@..Judging from Shipov's comments, today Topalov played too fast at critical junctures...breaking open his kingside like that just looked like madness! Even I, a rotten patzer, would never have dreamed of allowing it.

It seems that he entered this kamikadze position deliberately. There was no panic, he wanted it, he calculated "all" already when he played 30.e4, all up to 34.Ne3, but missed 34..Qe8!. He played fast 31.ef,32.fe,33.Rh3, 34.Ne3.. when he fell in "deep thought" realizing that he was lost.

It was pretty much as Kasparov had it : "computer thinking" , decisions based on supposedly "full compuation" which are defying the positional judgement. All Anand pieces were raining down on his King yet he was confident that there was no decisive blow since he saw it all as Fritz-10.

He fully deserved the loss it that's how he was 'thinking'.

Fiend, you continue this non-sense. Fine. Here are the facts:

1) You think Kasparov was afraid of Shirov? Look at their lifetime score for god's sake. I don't remember Shirov EVER WINNING A CLASSICAL GAME in his whole career against Kasparov! The score is 16-0.

Yes, read that again: 16-0.

I bet you didn't know that.

2) Kasparov split with FIDE in 1993. "FIDE WCC title in his attic from 1995-2000"? What are you talking about?

3) On Kasimzhanov and Ponomariov, I hope you are not serious. First of all, it was Ponomariov who was the one who refused to play. Do a google search for god's sake! And Kasimzhanov? Are you seriously saying that Kasparov was afraid of Kasimzhanov???

4) Nigel Short was the guy who beat every contender in the old format of qualifying match play according to FIDE regulations. It wasn't Kasparov who picked him, he was the legitimate FIDE contender as was Karpov before him under the exact same format.

I bet you didn't know that.

5) As for the "too green" assertion, Anand was the undisputed No2 in the world and had a good record against Kasparov up to that point. For most, it was a great surprise that he lost the way he did. Anand lost the psychological fight. Nobody could have known that. Would you care to enlighten us as to who would have been a greater contender than Anand in 1995? That's right. There wasn't any one else even close to Anand in 1995.

6) As for a rematch with Anand, it was him who didn't want to play again. He was psychologically demolished. For your information, after game 9 of their 1995 match which he won, ANAND NEVER AGAIN BEAT KASPAROV IN CLASSICAL CONTROLS IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS!!!

I bet you didn't know that.

As for this: "Kasparov was a Home Prep player, never great OTB".

OK. If you say so.

Let's not take the bait. Let the troll roll.

I am beginning to wonder whether the Topalov + Danailov beef is mainly with the Russians. Moro once said something about never wanting to play in an event with Topalov. Here against Anand there was no beef. They treated each other well and I would say Topalov and his manager behaved very well. Anand is a peacemaker...very difficult to make enemies with him and I doubt Topalov would have wanted to sabotage this match via toiletgate or something else.

Also, the Bulgarian organisers did a fab job. This was a very well organised match from the looks of it.

Perhaps we are stereotyping Topalov and Danailov based on their beef with the Russians.

To get a sense for how Anand viewes Topalov as an opponent here is a link to a short piece (at NDTV website)

"Since morning I wasn't thinking about any record. I was thinking just about staying alive. It was a bit difficult to adapt. Definitely, he is an incredibly tough opponent to have prevailed this night. Honestly, I had no idea how it is going to shape up," he said.

http://www.ndtv.com/news/sports/it-is-toughest-match-i-have-ever-played-anand-24847.php

"a four game match with rapid time controls "

No comment.

Round by round photos and analysis is posted more is promised http://players.chessdom.com/viswanathan-anand/anand-world-chess-champion-2010 and Anand deserves it!

I guess the debate w.r.t Kasparov will never get resolved. Anyone willing to put Anand in the same league as Fischer?

There's a little clip of the final moments on BNT

http://bnt.bg/bg/sport/view/28372/vishvanatan_anand_specheli_svetovnata_titla_po_shahmat

I've been a vishy fan for all my life. But lets learn to call spade a spade. Vishy was never better than Kasparov. Whether it was match or tournament play. IMHO, Kasparov is the best player chess has seen so far. No second thoughts abt it.

However Kasparov was no saint. In a career spanning over 15 years, Anand/Kramnik/Topa trio should have had more opportunities to challenge the champ. Kasparov has to take majority of the blame for all the damage he did to FIDE and K-A-T trio.

When folks like Anand/Kramnik play chess takes the centerstage. That was never the case with Kasparov. He always came with his theatrix.
That kaspy was not a great OTB player..hilarious argument.

Lets celebrate the day for what it is worthy of. Anand victory.

The two matches that Anand played with K&T raise a serious concert. Are e5 openings officially done with in Top level chess? If a staunch/historically e5 player like Anand avoids it for the fear of Petroff who will carry it forward?

Vishy Anands mom sends a message to him via a Indian news channel (NDTV) after his victory today: "He (Anand) has always been a very nice gentleman and very fair to everyone in any tournament. I want him to continue to be like that. Anybody can be good in games. But, I want him to be a good person also!"

g12: 417
g11: 170
g10: 311
g9: 434
g8: 379
g7: 172
g6: 189
g5: 208
g4: 332
g3: 187
g2: 239
g1: 142

Pardon, I am reposting from the other thread, I didn't realize everyone finished there and moved here:

I have been cheering for Anand but Topalov has played very well and kept very close.

But Topalov threw away today's game with those pawn grabs. Were those moves still in prep? Here is a humble Hypothesis - Topalov played those pawn grabs from prep, a computer told him it was okay, and this is a case of the materialistic computer grabbing pawns where humans immediately knew better.

I must also admit being a complete convert to the Sophia Rules, and I now find 14 move draws much more noxious. Anand and Topalov did a BIG BIG favor for professional chess - I hope the chess powers recognize it and begin to enforce similar rules throughout the professional chess world. No embarrassing GM draws between these two! Nothing embarrassing to explain to our non-chess friends. Just do it. A BIG sporting improvement!

Interview with Anand's parents after the match:
http://www.ndtv.com/news/videos/video_player.php?id=1226843

"But Topalov threw away today's game with those pawn grabs. Were those moves still in prep? Here is a humble Hypothesis - Topalov played those pawn grabs from prep, a computer told him it was okay, and this is a case of the materialistic computer grabbing pawns where humans immediately knew better."

The computers all hated that move and immediately went to around -4.

Topa was probably hoping for a volcano to erupt in Sofia - thats why he played on for so long :)

Why are people ragging on Kamsky?!! The man won the world cup ahead of demi-god Carlsen and that entitled him to a direct shot at Anand and the WC. Its only fair he is compensated by a slot in the next cycle.

This match seems to have shown the other players the most feasible approaches when playing Anand or Topa in future. Against Anand: tire him down physically in long grinds. Against Topa: solid positional chess, avoiding letting him create complications. Topa will play positional chess well too, but he will handle complications much better.

I am sure Anand would someday like to take on Topa in wild positions ala the 23rd century chess. I am eagerly looking forward to any tournament games between these two when there will be lesser to loose.

Fischer obviously, with a 'c' :) Apologies.

I would love to hear "the behind the curtains" stories. The discussions with the seconds on what to play for the 12th game, what were they analyzing, how did they spent the whole nights,...etc. There's some stuff like this on "my predecessors" and is really an incredible reading. Of course, that won't happen. They won't reveal that info, at least not in the next 15 years.

Anand is better than Kasparov in advanced chess where things like nerves, blunders, and psychological blocks against certain players do not play a role.

Why is it that Anand is better than Kasparov in advanced chess if Kasparov is truly such a great player? What, Kasparov doesn't know how to use a computer? That's doesn't sound too smart to me!

I think Kramnik/Kasparov/Topalov/Anand (and many others) are almost equally strong players. I would put Carlsen in that category too. But, I wouldn't put Aronian & Ivanchuk in that category. On a good day both Aronian and Ivanchuk can beat anyone, but they are just too inconsistent for me to put them in the same category as the others mentioned above.

Ian Rogers notes on Game 12 - see in particular his comment on Topalov probably pushing for a win today because he was superstitious about playing tie-breakers on the 13th (He lost the tie-breakers to Kramnik too on the 13th? as the article states)

I'm bit surprissed by this (possible interpretation).

http://main.uschess.org/content/view/10391/588/

A couple of points to wrap things up, and duck the trollies:

I've been highly critical of Topalov, but I'd like to point out that he's been nothing but a good guy himself - the stupidity around him has always been from Danailov. That being said, even though I do more or less have nothing but negative feelings about Danailov, he has managed to have some world class events and WCh matches in Sofia, so you know, money is good, and that alone is a positive.

As far as history - what's your choice? Historians will find a clearly unbroken line from Fischer to Karpov to Kasparov to Kramnik to Anand. Provided we don't screw things up in the future (and this is chess, so expect us to screw things up terribly in the future), this is the unbroken chain.

Let's say it isn't. What then? Well, then, you have to give it to Karpov in 1993. Well, he didn't beat the previous World Champion. Who was next? Khalif. Who beat... uh, Akopian. Then Vishy, then Pono, then Kasim, then Topalov.

Okay...

The funny thing is - the next "Undisputed" World Champion is... Kramnik! Who, cuts back into the old line perfectly! Anand beat him (also a previous FIDE champ), and then both of them beat Topalov, another challenger to the title... so:

Karpov: Never played a WC match after Timman
Khalif: Never played a WC match
Vishy: Gets to claim the WC title down the line
Pono: Declined to play a WC match (In hindsight, we should thank Silvio for screwing up this match and Pono's career - it greatly cleared up everything.)
Kasim: Never played a WC match
Topalov: Lost WC matches to Kramnik and Anand, #14 and #15 from the "historical" cycle.

So perfect. Now, if we have a legit cycle, producing in all likelihood Topalov, Carlsen or Kramnik, they'll play Anand, and everything else was but a dream...

Clearly many people posting here were not around when Kasparov, after losing the match to Kramnik, was motivated again.

Go to Chessbase and read the tournament reports during that time. If you think reading is not fundamental and boring, take a shortcut and look at the rating. While today people talk about decimals and a difference or swing of 5-10 points as if it is a big deal, Kasparov during that time was 30-50 Elo points higher than his closest rivals. Imagine Calsen with a 2863 rating and winning every tournament he enters, no contest. Year after year. That might give you an idea.

As a matter of fact, all these guys simply capitalized on Kasparov's retirement. They say so themselves. Anand has said so. Topalov has said so. It was their turn to shine, and they did. It isn't because they were "not at their peak". You think that they are at their peak now even though they are not performing better. There simply isn't a guy rated 50 points higher to compare to anymore. You'll understand when Carlsen goes to 2850 soon.

For the record, "chess cat" has nothing to do with yours truly.

Quite interesting match although too many mistakes from bothsides not belonging to worldchampionship class.
I'm rather disappointed.
Topalov burned his last game as Anesh Giri told on Chessbase by playing 22.Rf2 instead of 22.Rc1,
and going crazy like a Cafe player with 31.exf5? instead of 31.Cd2!.
Anand won, congratulations !
But the elementary mistakes he made before (was it game 7 he couldn't mate Topa?) shows that he is far away from Fischer.

Carlsen, Wesley So, Giri are coming for the next championship (and may be Topa if he can cool down on the attack!) , I think it will be quite interesting since these kids memorize openings like nobody!

Please forgive the repetition if someone else has pointed out before me that FIDE got its 20 per cent on top, not out of the player´s money. For a change they had announced the prize-fund correctly this time.

Another clue that may be Kasparov is not as smart as he is cracked up to be: he went up against Putin. Against Putin! Are you kidding me!? Did he really think he stood a chance? I'm surprised he even got out alive.

(And please please don't tell me that Kasparov really "cares" about democracy etc. and that's why he went up against Putin. That is complete hogwash. I think Kasparov really thought he could take on Putin. Which was dumb.)

OK, congratulations to both players and in particular to Vishy Anand as the winner, although I can't help feeling the games of top events are rather "hyped" for their sporting significance rather than their quality.
If you were to substitute a random couple of games played in Sofia with those taken from a top tournament such as Astrakhan (except the short draws, of course), without knowing which is which, I doubt if anybody could tell one from the other.

And as for history, I suggest the following sequence:

Kasparov - WC from 1985 to 1993
Vacant - from 1993 to 2006 (many champions = no champion)
Kramnik - from 2006 (unification match with Topalov) to 2008
Anand - from 2008 to the present day

Chesscat, I have a GREAT idea. Why don't we all – for a refreshing change – discuss who should have been the true WC for the last fifteen-something years? I'm sure we'll arrive at a consensus in no time!

/Optimistic trollhunter is optimistic

P.S. A challenger appears! Level 2813 Magnus Carlsen! D.S.

"Overweight Middle-Aged Man Retains Title"

So...what a great match. Not perfect chess but exciting chess. As I recall an overwhelming majority of viewers picked Anand to win.

Was Anand's age a plus factor for Topalov?

Was playing in Sofia a plus for Topalov?

Was the commute from Frankfort to Sofia detrimental for Anand?

Congratulations to Viswanathan Anand. Also kind words to Veselin Topalov for being a gentleman and for being willing to risk it all.

"I mean if Kasparov was such a super human as you make him out to be how come he did not win a single game from the 16 he played agaist Kramnik and that too supposedly when he was the "greatest" as you suggest."

Obviously those 16 games are very real and undeniable. But they are merely a brief part of a very long career when he not merely dominated, but basicaly obliterated his competition.

When his whole career is considered, one can only conclude that the Kramnik match was an anomaly. Whatever the reason it happened, it was clearly uncharacteristic of his career, either before or after.

"How will we ever understand why Topalov did it? He has twice been within the grasp of the World Championship, and twice failed at the final moment. Today, we can pinpoint the couple moves where the tide turned, and Topalov played them quickly. Why? I'm not his fan, I just want to know."

Bear in mind that this match included one game in which Anand blundered a win into a draw, and another in which he blundered a draw into a loss. That's not even counting Game 1, in which he apparently mis-remembered his prep. One must conclude, quite simply, that playing under this kind of pressure is awfully hard.

I do think you are misstating the circumstances. At no point in this match was the championship "within his grasp." Even without those two moves, the game was basically equal at that point, and even Topalov conceded that tiebreakers would likely favor Anand.

Fontane's video is up at

http://www.anand-topalov.com/en/gallery.html

europe echecs on officia site has some great post match impressions from Anand

http://www.anand-topalov.com/en/gallery.html

A great day for Chess. Even better, all talk of the FIDE WC line is now permanently dead. What a wonderful result.

****
What?

The 15th champion (Anand) turned away the 19th champion (Topalov) by the slimmest of margins.

That certainly doesn't invalidate the line of champions

1 Steinitz
2 Lasker
3 Capablanca
4 Alekhine
5 Euwe
6 Botvinnik
7 Smyslov
8 Tal
9 Petrosian
10 Spassky
11 Fischer
12 Karpov
13 Kasparov
14 Khalifman
15 Anand
16 Ponomariov
17 Kazimzhinov
18 Kramnik
19 Topalov

Congratulations to the reigning champion -- # 15 Anand -- who is unique in having more than one titleholder in-between his reigns and to have defeated # 18 and # 19 in succession

It certainly would have been better for chess if Topalov had won -- as there remain doubts whether # 15 would truly support the FIDE chronology.

However -- and I do believe most would agree -- # 20 Carlsen cannot get here soon enough

Hmmm. Thanks for the ratings lists. Almost 100 points difference to the third player in the ratings list for almost every year!

That's also a 52 point average for those 5 years between Kasparov and number 2.

In the current ratings list, within 53 points of Carlsen are 6 players!

If you take the 82 points of the year 2000, within 82 points of Carlsen are 18 players! Erase almost the whole top 20 in comparison to Carlsen and you get the difference in rating between Kasparov and Anand in that year.

Interesting.

Topa will probably never realize his dream of becoming world champion. However, I hope history will give him credit for keeping chess alive in the age of the super-draw. Can anyone imagine the last 15 years without Topalov, Moro and Aronian?

****
Irv simply misstates history -- Topalov is/was the 19th champion -- Anand returns as 15th and reigning champ (shades of Grover Cleveland)

You ESPN fans here in the United States, there was a quick mention of the chess match on PTI today at the end of the show.

RealityCheck: Kasparov's record against Kramnik is nothing to boast about overall - not just in that WCC match. If kasparov is greatest, then Kramnik is greater than him!

Anand has won!

But this thread has now become a super fine yarn manufacturing factory. Some still can't come to terms with Anand's victory, his genuis, his world's greatest ever.

Winning is getting tougher and this is a never-seen-before competetion. Olden day champions wouldn't have get past middle game stage against either one of Topalov or Anand. These two were playing as if they knew the whole game. Amazing depth in preparation from Topalov, quite unexpected, and once again Anand's preparation and accuracy has come to his rescue. It was as if advanced (computer+human) chess match was happening. Top players with computer were clueless in assessing the situation. May be if you will run the old championships games on Rybka Aquarium or Deep Fritz to see how those champions chickened out, drew in playable positions, how they avoided complicated lines and stick to prepared best lines hoping opponent to make mistakes, how much unexploited inaccuracies in their games, how weak were their end games etc. etc., then you will be able to appreciate the quality of this match games.

Wonderful performance by Anand!

I always liked Topalov for his humbleness and honest interviews. He has shown great sportsmanship during this match!

Thanks both Anand and Topalov for the great show!!

Fiend, you don't know what you are talking about. Kasparov never "hid his FIDE WCC tropy in his attic for close to half a decade". He played W CH matches every three years as those were the FIDE rules.

He played Karpov in 1984 in match FIDE stopped after 48 games! They started from scratch in 1985 and he won the title.

He gave Karpov his rematch in 1986 as were FIDE regulations.

He played again with Karpov in 1987.

In 1990, he again played Karpov!

In 1993, he and Short broke with FIDE, formed the PCA and did their match on their own.

In 19995, he played Anand.

He then was going to play Shirov but the funds required and promised never materialized. Shirov's catastrophic lifetime score against Kasparov was probably the reason, especially after the humiliating demolishments of Short and Anand. It also has to be interesting and a real contest for people to put their money, you know...

So in 2000 he played Kramnik who never gave Kasparov a chance for a rematch even though Kasparov had after that match the best results in his career, including achieving a rating of 2851 (!!!) and winning 13 (!!!) consecutive elite tournaments.

By the way, the FIDE nominees you are talking about were either Karpov in the late 1990's when he was a shadow of his former self and who Kasparov had already defeated 4 times (!) or:

Ponomariov, who refused to fight him in a match in 2003!

And Kasimdzhanov, with nobody interested in putting any money in that match! As if Kasimzhanov would challenge Kasparov when he was killing everybody everywhere! You are welcome to take a look at Kasimzhanov's results in the 2-3 elite tourneys he took part in after winning his "title" to get an idea!

So here are Kasparov's W. Ch. matches:

1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1990, 1993, 1995, 2000.

Nobody would sponsor a match ag. Shirov in 1998.
Nobody would sponsor a match ag. Kasimzhanov in 2004.

Rematch denied by Kramink after the match in 2000.
Match denied by Ponomariov in 2003.

In short, it would be appreciated if people at least do an elementary research before expressing their "opinions" (yes, everybody has one!).

*****

How many untruths can one put in a single post?

Karpov was not a "shadow" of himself from 1993 - 1998, he only had the greatest tournament result of his life at Linares during his second title reign

Kasparov wasn't an innocent bystander -- he and Rentaro announced the WCC (new organization) that would fund his "private cycle" -- he asked Anand to play (who said NO), then had Shirov and Kramnik play a match, which Shirov won To blame Shirov for the lack of $$$ is atrocious -- it is like the NFL canceling the SuperBowl if the wrong team qualifies Kasparov was not only the "champ" of this rump/fake group, he was an organizer with a responsibility to fund it

Ponomariov was the reigning world champion and expected to be treated like it during reunification

And anyone who thinks Khalifman was undeserving should read his book of best games and his interviews from 1999 -- where he clearly states that he was not the best player in the world but clearly was the world champion and to his credit he acted like it

Muhammad Ali was 10x better than Leon Spinks but Spinks is part of the line

Kasparov's title ended in 1993 -- period

Felicitaciones Anand...
Si usted lee esto por favor contesteme en espanol...Ahora que es mas campeon que nunca...lo invito al Peru...aunque sea a jugar un match amistoso en MacchuPicchu.
Lei por ahi senor Anand que usted tiene un lindo caracter...humilde....y eso hace que la gente lo quiera mucho.
Un abrazo
Rafael Llanos.
Peruano residente en Texas.

RealityCheck: Kasparov's record against Kramnik is nothing to boast about overall - not just in that WCC match. If Kasparov is greatest, then Kramnik is greater than him! Of course, Anand is better than Kramnik :-)

Why do people keep assuming that Carlsen will be a world champion? He's got all of two wins on the super-GM circuit (and only if you count Nanjing), and he isn't the first wunderkind to do well (although the first to hit #1 in the world). He hasn't yet won a match against strong opposition, that I'm aware of, let alone a 2800 player with experience.

"12 Karpov
13 Kasparov
14 Khalifman
15 Anand
16 Ponomariov
17 Kazimzhinov
18 Kramnik
19 Topalov"

huh?

How do you get Kasparov, then Khalifman? If you credit the KO's at all, it goes back to Karpov first, and then.... well...

13 Kasparov (1990)
14 Kasparov/Karpov
15 Kasparov/Khalifman
16 Kasparov/Anand (briefly!)
17 Kramnik/Anand
18 Kramnik/Ponomariov
19 Kramnik/Kasimdzhanov
20 Kramnik/Topalov
21 Kramnik
22 Anand

As always, nice special write up, Mig!

Why do people keep assuming that Carlsen will be a world champion? He's got all of two wins on the super-GM circuit (and only if you count Nanjing), and he isn't the first wunderkind to do well (although the first to hit #1 in the world). He hasn't yet won a match against strong opposition, that I'm aware of, let alone a 2800 player with experience.

"12 Karpov
13 Kasparov
14 Khalifman
15 Anand
16 Ponomariov
17 Kazimzhinov
18 Kramnik
19 Topalov"

huh?

How do you get Kasparov, then Khalifman? If you credit the KO's at all, it goes back to Karpov first, and then.... well...

13 Kasparov (1990)
14 Kasparov/Karpov
15 Kasparov/Khalifman
16 Kasparov/Anand (briefly!)
17 Kramnik/Anand
18 Kramnik/Ponomariov
19 Kramnik/Kasimdzhanov
20 Kramnik/Topalov
21 Kramnik
22 Anand

****
An observant reader would have noticed that I did not list the title changes between existing champions -- thus, no Alekhine/Euwe/Alekhine/Botvinnik/Smyslov/Botvinnik strings

Karpov is # 12 and Khalifman is # 14, regardless of how many times they regain it/lose it

This is why Anand is #15 and Topalov # 19

Haha, your line of champions is utterly ridiculous. Noone would seriously consider the FIDE-KO titles in the same line as the classical world champion title. The real line is clear, convincing, and simple: It consists of 15 members, the last three of which are Kasparov, Kramnik, and Anand. Topalov might become a world champion in 2012, but as of now, all he was is a FIDE champion (like Bogoljubov was, for that matter!)

***
Look, history is history Did you know the Chicago Cardinals *lost* a title game (to the Pottsville Maroons) yet are listed as the champions of football that year because the Maroons were stripped of that title?

I shake my head at the posters here who allow private title players to STEAL the title property -- and you nod your heads The song "Cult of Personality" comes to mind

PCA breakaway -- no matter how strong the players -- was thievery and the two architects were stripped of ther titles

I have this "fear" that thirty years from now, as I'm ready to put away my chess set forever, I'll still be reading effing threads bringing up Fishcer and Kasparov whenever another actually playing grandmaster achieves something worthwhile.

Damn it. I was 12 when Fischer won, it's been years since Kasparov was active. Yes, they were great, but they're in the past. Breathe in, let go.

Enjoy today's great players. I certainly did - both Anand and Topalov. Before the match, I predicted that Anand would "wipe the board with Topalov." That didn't happen. Topalov put up a stubborn and active defence, filled with dangers that Anand had to traverse. Which meant better chess for us all - but you still got the feeling that when he had to, Anand could outcalculate Topalov.

I'm sending a letter to the organizers, thanking them for a wonderful job and looking forward to more chess pleasures from Bulgaria.
And hope to see Topalov in action again soon.

Congratulations to Vishy, who had me excited today! What a player!!!

I have this "fear" that thirty years from now, as I'm ready to put away my chess set forever, I'll still be reading effing threads bringing up Fishcer and Kasparov whenever another actually playing grandmaster achieves something worthwhile.

Damn it. I was 12 when Fischer won, it's been years since Kasparov was active. Yes, they were great, but they're in the past. Breathe in, let go.

Enjoy today's great players. I certainly did - both Anand and Topalov. Before the match, I predicted that Anand would "wipe the board with Topalov." That didn't happen. Topalov put up a stubborn and active defence, filled with dangers that Anand had to traverse. Which meant better chess for us all - but you still got the feeling that when he had to, Anand could outcalculate Topalov.

I'm sending a letter to the organizers, thanking them for a wonderful job and looking forward to more chess pleasures from Bulgaria.
And hope to see Topalov in action again soon.

Congratulations to Vishy, who had me excited today! What a player!!!

Could someone decipher what line Anand realizes as a mistake in the last piece of video in http://www.anand-topalov.com/en/gallery.html

Its got to do something with the fact of why he played Kg7 instead of Kh7, since in the video he says "Rxh8+ takes Qf8+ Qg8 Qxe7" and some other move which I cant hear correctly. And then Anand turns away realizing something.

Also someone posted ago that Anand mentioned "he almost got a heart attack when he saw Rh8+". So this has got something to do with that. But I cant seem to recollect the exact position that he is talking about

FYI, the press conference video is up on chessvibes...

Chesspride! Great to see you again!

Your joke about the line of champions is wearing a little thin, though . . .

****
As is my patience for those who think FIDE spent millions organizing title cycles 1993-2005 as some type of joke

FIDE was in a life and death struggle against private title hooligans and it prevailed by a very narrow margin no thanks to these "fans" who try to reward thievery

Akin to telling Mrs Lincoln in 1870 that her husband's little war wasn't worth it and that West Virginia was never a state

Who is this Russianbear? On the message boards, he has only negative things to say about Anand for years. How old is Russianbear?

Congratulations to Anand. Let him defend his title for years to come.

It would be nice if Kasparov could say anything that didn't have a tinge of cynicism and bitterness, especially after a tense, hard-fought match like this. Gazza is no longer world champion, and was sent into the night with a loss to no less than Topalov himself.

Anand was more than a match for Topalov, which surprised me. He rose to the occasion and played some great chess in some uneasy moments during the match. His endgame techinque was a bit shaky, but his foresight in defense in game 11 (sac'ing the pawn on b5) was pretty inspired. I've read one of Vishy's books, and he's one of the greatest 'schematic thinkers' in the history of the game. Qe8!! today was one of his great career moments.

Topalov's fighting spirit, and creativity, warrants him credit as well. And his good sportsmanship at the conclusion of the match is a model. Ship the video to Tiger Woods. Please.

Great match.

Just checked out the press conference. The most mysterious comment was Topalov's: "I took a risk and was punished for it". A risk seems justified if there is the potential for reward. For sure, hindsight is 20/20 but 32. fxe4 doesn't seem compelling for White in any way at all - even if Anand had overlooked 34..Qe8. Perhaps Topalov was banking on play along the semi-open f file...very interesting that in spite of what transpired, Topalov doesn't seem to consider moves 31 and 32 as errors (unlike in game 4 where he was quick to point to ..h6 as a blunder).

Question for the knowledgeable group here - how exactly has Kramnik obsolote-ized 1. e4? Would love to know the contxt behind frequent comments here.

Question for the experts out there: Was 39... Rg7 a better move than ... Re7 and will that have won the game in the next few (2-3)moves itself?
Let me know the analysis please.

40.Rf8+ Kh7 41.Qf5 and white is off the hook.

Adams also beat Kramnik's Petroff in 2005.

An interview of Vishy's parents after the win:

http://www.ndtv.com/news/videos/video_player.php?id=1226843

Am I missing something, or was this the first WC since WWII with no Russian playing?

And isn't that a bad sign for the health of chess, or the other way around?

Interview http://www.timesnow.tv/videoshow/4344984.cms

Another,asked some stupid questions http://www.ndtv.com/news/sports/viswanathan-anand-retains-world-chess-title-24819.php?u=2323

Here's another "exclusive" interview, this one for CNN/IBN: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/my-toughest-game-says-world-champ-anand/115113-5-23.html

Another: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/my-toughest-game-says-world-champ-anand/115113-5-23.html

So....who were the SECONDS?

Anand's seconds were Peter Heine Nielsen, Rustam Kasimdzhanov, Surya Ganguly and Radoslaw Wojtaszek (the same gang as in Bonn).

Topalov's seconds were Jan Smeets, Erwin l’Ami, Ivan Cheparinov and Jiri Dufek (this was already known).

Isn't Dufek in the Rybka team as an opening book specialist?

Hopping quickly over all the unnecessary trolling, congrats to champion Vishy Anand for a great showing in this match, and also congrats to Topalov for being a worthy challenger and taking it to the wire. There was a pleasing lack of wierd accusations and bad behaviour from those of whom it was almost expected. I am very glad that they didn't have to resort to faster time controls to resolve the championship, and yet it seems sad that the match couldn't have been a bit longer...

So, I'll give him a week to rest. Next question: what is the first tournament appearance for the Champ? :) I expect great swaths of destruction to be wrought by his prep.

Shipov's Russian video post-mortem of yesterday's game - http://www.crestbook.com/files/Sofia-2010-Game-12-Summary.wmv - didn't differ much from his on-line commentary. He slightly elaborated on Kasparov's comments about Topalov's computer style of play by giving the example of Kasparov criticising 23. g3. Computers examine all the lines and see nothing wrong with it (which might be how Topalov thought), but most GMs would reject it as a long-term weakening of the king position. He suggested 23. h3, unpleasant as that might be. He added that Anand would have been delighted to be able to play 26...Bb7! Shipov also commented that Kasparov was rooting for Anand in the match, though he didn't specify why.

The other example of a computer-type of thought was perhaps, 30. e4?, 31. exf4?! and 32. fxe4?? (Shipov's annotation), though Shipov simply couldn't explain how Topalov played those moves so badly (there were good options available). White's position after 32...Qxe4 would be horrible even without the killer blow of 34...Qe8!!

Thanks to Mig and others for the kind comments. I probably got a bit carried away posting material during the match :) Some suggested starting a blog, which I'd never thought about before, but now I'm planning to try - I'll still post here but it would be useful to have especially the longer translations archived somewhere else. I just got a domain name and some hosting, so if I ever work out how to use Wordpress or Movable Type I'll let you know!

I hope Topalov sticks around as, besides his entertaining play, it'd be a shame if the Bulgarian press lost interest! From a brief look this morning there's no suggestion of any complaints about the loss. Danailov's quoted as saying that Topalov simply made a few mistakes in the final game.

My favourite journalist, Tsanko Tsanev, adds a curious detail after quoting Topalov:
---
"After I lost the tiebreaks in Elista to Kramnik on the 13th I didn't want the same to happen again and decided to take risks. That was why I declined the draw I had in the game and decided to play for victory at any cost", Topalov admitted after the match.

He forgot, however, that it was on the 13th in 2005 that he became world champion in Argentina.
http://www.24chasa.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=476855

http://sports.rediff.com/report/2010/may/12/vishy-anand-speaks-exclusively-to-rediff.htm some nice quotes here

You have to respect the volcano!

Topalov´s Sofia rules. Nice behavior. I am happy that Anand won.

here's a question: when is the last time/ has it ever happened before, that someone has won/retained a world chess title by winning with black in the final game?

Kasparov beat Karpov with black in the last game of their 2nd match to win the title for the first time.

Some observations:

I find it highly interesting that in a thread in which Mig lauds the posters for their contributions during the match, the content has reverted back to the trolling drivel that plagues these blogs.

I also notice that the same WC arguments (who's better, lineage, etc.), chiefly absent during the match, have returned.

FWIW, there are those who will say Anand (or Kramnik, or whoever) is the greatest ever. There are those who say Kasparov was/is the greatest ever. There are those who may still say Fischer or Karpov was the greatest ever.

Does anyone mention Lasker or Alekhine as the greatest ever anymore? No. Perhaps because theory has advanced, but that is irrelevant to playing strength. It is my contention that actually seeing these people play -- being their contemporary -- is what solidifies our belief in their abilities. There are very few, if any, contemporaries of Capablanca, for example, still alive to tout his ability.

I grew up during the Fischer era. I was convinced he was the best ever (and indeed, he convinced many others of the same). I was absolutely certain that he would have triumphed over Karpov. It has taken me until only recently to allow myself to think that Kasparov may have equal or superior ability. I'm still not convinced. I thought that a young Anand was a significant pretender to the title of best ever. I don't think that has happened yet, although he still has a diminishing opportunity to achive this (in my eyes). Carlsen has a great opportunity to convince people of this.

My point is that it is all subjective. You can quote any historical statistics you want. It's all just relative to their moments in time. How do you really prove that Morphy was the greatest, when he had so few results against high class players? Even looking at the games of Steinintz doesn't give us any insight as to what *wasn't* played and why, at the time the game was in progress.

My opinion of who is the best ever is, of course, *entirely* irrelevant. I think it takes someone who has studied chess for a lifetime, and the games of our heroes past and present, to determine who may be the best ever. And you know what? There will be no consensus, especially considering that someone who has done this study is more than likely a candidate themselves.

But the discussions sure are fun.

CO

"No matter how good he was for a few years, he simply didn't play enough against top-class players."
I've heard some terrible, terrible rubbish on this blog, but really, isn't there some kind of upper threshold??

There have always been attempts made by many chess enthusiasts to evaluate Vishwanathan Anand’s place in chess history. Many have gone as far as placing him on top of the champions list while some have gone to the other end denying him the place he deserves in the history of chess. Here, I will try to make an objective assessment of Anand’s place in the history of chess.

Let me first consider his major achievements.

He not only became world champion but defended his title against two very strong contemporaries (Kramnik and Topalov).

He is the only player to win World Championship in all the three formats I.e. Knockout, Tournament and Match (There are critics who say that only matches should be considered but the fact is that his peers also participated in these formats but failed to win in all three formats shows Anand’s versatility).

He is one of the few players who reached number one ranking in the world.

He is one of the few players who reached a rating of 2800 and above.

He has won numerous strong and prestigious tournaments such as Linares (3 times), Corus (five times) and many others. Also he is very consistent in tournaments and there are only few tournaments where he has finished outside of the first three.

He has very good record in match play and his record is much better than his contemporaries such as Kramnik and Topalov. With the exception of his match against Kasparov, Anand has not lost a match by wide margin. Most of the matches he has won convincingly while few of them are very close.

He has remained one of the top three ranked players in the world for more than 15 Years.

He is also one of the best players ever in rapid formats.

Now, let me consider his under achievements.

Kasparov’s dominance over Anand. Kasparov has beaten Anand so many times that it is difficult to consider anything else other than this as Anand’s major under achievement. Even if you ask Anand, he might tell you the same. Adding to that, one of his peer Kramnik himself dominated Kasparov, while the other one Topalov has certainly much better record against Kasparov.

His meek surrender to Kasparov in 1995 world championship match. This is so important because if Anand had won this match history would have been different.

His inability to remain number one for longer period of time. Again Kasparov remained number one player for most of the period when Anand remained number two or three. Later Topalov has taken over for most part.

He has finished just behind Kasparov in many strong tournaments.

Now after stating his achievements and under achievements, let me try to objectively assess his position in the history of chess. If we see his achievements, we can say that he has almost achieved everything his great predecessors have achieved in a chess career spanning more than 20 years. But when we see his under achievements then only we realize that what he could have achieved more. And here we have one man standing between Anand’s achievement and non achievement. I mean if Kasparov was not in the picture there would have been no bounds to what Anand could have achieved. This man Kasparov is the greatest ever player (Arguably for some and unarguably for some).Adding to that fact is most of Anand’s career and Kasparov’s career overlapped as Anand is only five years younger to Kasparov. It clearly tells us that inspite of having such a dominant chess force alongside Anand’s achievements are considerable in comparison with the accomplishments of many of his great predecessors. With this knowledge in the background I would like to give my ranking of world champions as follows.

1. Garry Kasparov
2. Bobby Fischer
3. Jose Capablanca
4. Anatoly Karpov
5. Emanuel Lasker
6. Alexander Alekhine
7. Mikhail Botvinik
8. Vishwanathan Anand
9. Boris Spasky
10. Tiger Petrosian

Anand will certainly move up the order if he retains his title one more time and might even enter top 5 if he maintains his current level for the next 5 years. As far as his contemporaries Kramnik and Topalov are considered, they are still young and have the ability to enter this list in future. Even Anand was not in my top 10 list 5 years ago when people thought best of Anand was over but now he has entered all time top 10 list. So there is still a lot of hope for both of them.

"... the parallels between Anand’s success and the cinematic classic Rocky IV are uncanny" -- GM Ian Rogers

Good read:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/05/12/world-championship-chess-its-eye-of-the-tiger-from-madras-as-anand-claims-crown/

Now is the next wch in 2012 or 2011? I suppose its 2012. I see a quote that it will be in London "Anand will keep the world title until London 2012" as quoted in http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/05/12/world-championship-chess-its-eye-of-the-tiger-from-madras-as-anand-claims-crown/

Does anyone know when the candidate matches are going to be? later this year or next year?

Five strongest players of all time?

1. Kasparov
2. Anand
3. Carlsen
4. Kramnik
5. Topalov

These guys have way more knowledge and way more opportunity to fight against extremely strong competition than, say, Lasker did. The result? They are simply stronger.

Hard work, abundance of knowledge, and plenty of opportunity to play against stiff competition don't automatically translate into great chess strength, but today's talent pool is far wider and deeper than it was a century ago. Many more people play serious chess in more parts of the world. The ones that rise to the top are supremely talented.

"Question for the knowledgeable group here - how exactly has Kramnik obsolote-ized 1. e4? Would love to know the contxt behind frequent comments here."

Crediting this to Kramnik alone is surely an exaggeration. However, it is certainly true that many of the top players seem no longer to prefer e4. We’ve come a long way since Bobby Fischer proclaimed it “best by test.”

In the last three WC matches (Kramnik-Topalov, Kramnik-Anand, and Anand-Topalov), there has been only one e4 game. That was in the final game of Kramnik-Anand, when Anand had a one-point lead, and wanted to force Kramnik to play a Sicilian. Kramnik's presence affected two of those matches, but even in this one, with Kramnik not present, neither player trotted out e4.

Both Kramnik and Gelfand now play the Petroff almost exclusively against e4, and that is apparently why many of their opponents avoid it. It is less clear to me why Anand did not play it against Topalov.

Hello everybody,

Could you give us your Fide Elo with your commentary in order to spare time, since some remarks are really irrelevant, others true, others half true.

One game I like is Zapata-Anand (Biel 1988) 1-0 which lasted six moves ! ...

According to FIDE, the Candidates matches are now scheduled for 2011, the next world title match for 2012.

Congrats to Anand and many thanks to Danailov and the Bulgarians for organizing such a fantastic event. Topalov was a worthy challenger and showed great fighting spirit.

The title never actually belonged to FIDE; indeed, it existed well before FIDE came into existence. What FIDE did was establish itself as a worldwide entity that had authority to organize the title game under its auspices, but the title itself always has belonged to the defending champion, not the federation. Ergo, Kasparov did not "steal" the title, but rather just decided to go with a different organizer.

Hotep,

Maliq

***
Absolute rubbish, unless you believe the title belonged to Robert J. Fischer from 1972 - 2008 and all the title chess in-between was a dream.

If the title belongs to the defending champion as private property, then you are forced into this position.

Ah, but I am sure you will agree that it is not private property -- with some weasel words about inactivity.

So a governing body must be able to strip an inactive champion. That body is FIDE.

And an active body is able to strip a bad-behaving champion. That body is FIDE.

And that -- is why the FIDE line is the only line.

Hi Supercapa,

Your assessments seem to be very objective and fair with regards to Anand's career. You have given enough arguments both for and against how history might consider him. As you know, in sports, psychology of the player too plays an important role. In case of Anand, I feel he was so devastated psychologically against Kasparov after 1995 WCC, that he failed to reproduce his magic against him later on in various other tournaments. So too, was the case with Kasparov against Kramnik, he found Kramnik to be so tough an opponent to beat, specially when he failed to win even a single match against him in WCC. This seems so surprising considering Kasparov to be one the most aggressive players in the history of chess (may be psychologically he felt that Kramnik knows all his preparations, since he worked with him in 1995 match). So, whenever we judge Anand, I think it would be fair to judge Anand against all of his opponents in his career rather than restrict his inability to win against Kasparov.

Also, I think we need to include the concept of adaptability as well, when ranking players and I think Anand's universal style of chess may gain him some points here. It is a great asset to play every type of position whether strategic, tactical, classical, rapid, blitz, tournament, match etc.

Finally, we have to include the legacy of the player, whether his style of chess or his sheer achievements have influenced/inspired the younger generation to take up the game of chess as career. I think in this respect, Anand scores points as well, after he came to limelight in the world of chess, the game picked up tremendously in India.

Thanks.

Well, hasn't this been fun!?

dee4 said: "I admit that I am ignorant about Lasker, Alekhine, and other greats of yesteryears, but as far as I know, none of them had a similar level of dominance for such a long time."

Uh, how long was Lasker champion again?

Then he said: "Fischer's body of work is too small to given him any serious consideration for this title. No matter how good he was for a few years, he simply didn't play enough against top-class players."

... to which chesshire cat replied: "
I've heard some terrible, terrible rubbish on this blog, but really, isn't there some kind of upper threshold??"

... and dee4 rejoined: "For how many years was he #1, how many years as WC, and how does that compare to Kasparov or Karpov?"

In my original post, I said: "My point is that it is all subjective. You can quote any historical statistics you want. It's all just relative to their moments in time."

...which means all that is unrelated to their playing strength. And, in any event, Taimanov and Larson were no slouches, and Petrosian was almost unbeatable! It's not about environment, it's about ability.

Supercapa makes some very good points in a nice post, which dee4 acknowledges.

Uff Da chimed in with: " These guys have way more knowledge and way more opportunity to fight against extremely strong competition than, say, Lasker did. The result? They are simply stronger.

Hard work, abundance of knowledge, and plenty of opportunity to play against stiff competition don't automatically translate into great chess strength, but today's talent pool is far wider and deeper than it was a century ago. Many more people play serious chess in more parts of the world. The ones that rise to the top are supremely talented."

My only beef here is that "way more knowledge" and "abumdance of knowledge" are irrelevant. Your other arguments are valid, whether or not correct. We simply cannot know just how deep Lasker's (or Morphy's, or Fischer's, or whoever) understanding of the game was, as we weren't there. We weren't inside his head, and we can never know the depth of his understanding. We still have the opportunity to hear the inner thoughts of our contemporaries (if they express them), and we are duly impressed. But there will never be a consensus. Even if someone dominates chess for the next 40 years, s/he will be dismissed as a great because "there was lesser competition."

Just my observations...

CO

Congrats Anand, he is still a WC, great achievement.
As far as him being better than Kasparov, I have seen Kasparov play and he is no Kasparov. Kasparov's chess accomplishments are unparalleled like winning 13 straight elite tournaments in a row, c'mon that is godly. He may be compared to Capablanca or Karpov but please he owned Vishy. And what has Vishy done in elite tournaments, good but this is apples and oranges. Everyone likes jumping on the flavor of the month but Kasparov's match with Karpov brought people back to chess and his dominance kept them there. All the top player owe him for the big appearance fees and prizes, so the chess world should be thankful there was a Kasparov and the way he played took tremendous energy and devotion. I thank him for all the beautiful games, whatever bad you can say about him, you can say 100 things good, imho.

It says on wikipedia that the WCC cycle is two years.

Is that true? So the next WCC will be in 2012 and it will be Anand versus a challenger.

Has the organization of this match started yet?

If the championship is every two years, could they be held during the summer and winter olympic games (along with third place games)? I think this would generate more exposure for chess, at the expense of a de juris pay day for the contestants. "Amateur athletes" are already paid for Olympic performances by many countries, though. There is room for lots of nudge-nudge wink-wink to ensure compensation.

If the above idea is premature or impossible, could there at least be a tournament every 4 years during the winter Olympics, with medals?

-..-
The reason I think this needs serious thought is that nobody really CARES ABOUT CHESS anymore. Anand-Topalov got no mention at all in the news in Canada (where I live).

Did you notice all the Bulgarian spectators that came to watch Anand v. Topalov?

Chess desparately needs some way of generating interest amongst the public, and legitimizing the sport.

More from everyone's favourite Bulgarian chess journalist, Tsanko Tsanev - "Why Topalov had to lose to Anand". It's complete madness and almost indecipherable, though the Google translation is still fun - especially when you get lines like "But everything came to a portrait of Anand as a new Buddha" seemingly from nowhere.

http://tinyurl.com/35yzhqa

Some other random quotes: "On the morning of the 12th game the "Indian Express" newspaper released a portrait of their World Champion. The author of the article was declared a saint by Chessbase, the biggest enemy of Vesko and his manager Silvio Danailov. The champion was described as the national pride of India and a great mind who embodies their progress in everything. The portrait was with a few hours remaining to the end of the 12th game and as of the match winner in Sofia." [the Chessbase article - http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6324 - is dated 10/5, though I have to say it's almost as bizarrely written as Tsanko's work!]

He then goes on to a mention a rumour of Anand coming only to draw the last game (no idea how that fits with the implied conspiracy theory...).

After Topalov's blunder "everyone" waits for Topalov to think of some "super genius" idea to prove the computers wrong and then, in Google's poignant phrase: "We would be alone, no more no chance, almost cried little Berbatov - Cyprian, whom he believed to live mascot of the Bulgarian staff."

I'm not sure what to make of his comment on Topalov saying he hadn't wanted to play tiebreaks on the 13th (again):
"Nobody paid attention to the justification for his excessive risk. And his fatalism".

Then Tsanko says it would be better not to imagine what would have happened if Topalov had won. Kasparov, "the Great and Terrible" apparently considers Topalov a Chess Cinderella who had no right to a match with Anand. And then, slightly editing Google:

"The appearance of Anatoly Karpov in Sofia was a sign that a new division is quite possible, if anything happens at the higher aesthetic canons of the Russian school. Its representatives still accuse us that we lit the toilet in the Elista war. While it was a hatchet to be buried. Besides, who would allow Silvio Danailov to come up with such glory as to top the European Chess Federation and to create a structure similar to winning the Uefa Cup. True, Vesko now takes €400,000 less. But after two years in London wise Anand will be abandoned. And then the title will finally be ours.

As long, however, as the young genius Magnus Carlsen doesn't rush to decide otherwise."

To be fair, on the whole there's anti-Russian sentiment in the Bulgarian press, but Tsanko's utter weirdness seems unique. It's baffling how he holds down his job - in fact the same article has also been published by a different website: http://topsport.ibox.bg/news/id_1594016225

There in the comments people wonder if he's on drugs and who the author of such stupidity is (they left out his name) :)

Congratulations to Vishy Anand. He has proven himself to be one of the best players in History.

I believe that only Joel Benjamin ranks above Vishy in the current chess elite. Joel should have been given a legitimate shot at the title 15 years ago!

It's sad to realize that it's been over five years since Garry Kimovich retired. There will soon be an entire generation of players that won't even remember him playing chess. Wow.

Mig - can you get in touch with Jeff Sonas and request him to update the chessmetrics database and rankings? It's one of the best ways to do these historical calculations and is a lot of fun to browse through.

He also had this very nice Chessbase article giving players gold medals for each year where they had been the best player (also had silver/bronze), which he used in his discussion of best player ever. Will be great if those lists can be updated!

Karpov and Kasparov STOLE the title which BELONGED to Bobby. Anand, after having defeated a Russian commi (Kramweak) and an Eastern European commi (Topaflop)has become Bobby's succesor...the WC title is only NOW legitimate.

This is what it looks like:

World Champion 1972-2008 - Bobby Fischer
World Champion 2008-2020 - Vishy Anand

If you believe any of the above, you need help.

Here is the Sonas article I was talking about:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2409

The following article has some really interesting comments by Anand. Wonder what people make of it here.

http://beta.thehindu.com/sport/other-sports/article428341.ece

On the match strategy: In one sense, I think, I misjudged him. He made certain changes during the match. One of the things we assumed was, he always likes moving around in matches.

This means, he'll play an opening for a couple of games and then move on to the next one. His match strategy in the past was never to stand his ground. Kind of hit-and-run strategy.

So, whether consciously or sub-consciously, we had made this assumption the basis of our preparation. But he stood his ground. He did not switch his openings.

We started having problem in the second half because we were thin in the areas he had concentrated on. And we ourselves were doing the hitting and running. So there was some coping there.

In terms of the opening preparation, we made some bad calls. The team did some excellent work but in a match it is not about excellent work but making the right judgement call. If you prepare something and it does not get played, it is not much use. So in that sense, he did surprise me.

On the difficult phase of the match: I missed a few. Game 7 to 10 were very difficult for me. I felt he started taking the match initiative during this phase.

In Game 8, he did press me; he had a good idea and all, but having escaped, and then to blunder and lose was bad. And in Game 10, when I was losing, I thought that, after the last three games, if I were to lose and fall behind, it would be very difficult (to bounce back).

Why should the others who won the championship according to FIDE be not recognized because of Kasparov's mistake."

Because making people like Kasimzhanov, Ponomariov and Khalifman World Champions is a joke which completely desecrated and destroyed the one holy grail of chess, the Title.

****
Ponomariov is still a top 20 player and faced Gelfand in the World Cup for a candidates spot.

Your baseless attacks on a former world titeholder are appalling. It is like saying Bronstein would have been a joke in 1950...completely ignorant.

Anand vs. Ponomariov in 2010 is no sure bet -- can you say with certainty that Anand would win? No.

The problem as to why the knockout system did not get its credit is because several people did not participate. And hence people like ponomariov, kasim etc. got devalued and this is ofcourse is unfair. Lets say that if in that world cup every top player, kasprov, kramnik, etc had all participated then all of a sudden it becomes a great event and winner will be recognized better. If instead the top player decides to break away from FIDE, then suddenly the fans dont know where to focus and chess is at loss. This is what happened after 1993. No sponsors anywhere, big mess. only sponsors were available for events where a lot of players were playing. and this happened to be the knowckout.

Rather by sticking with FIDE and promoting certain events according to the situation and at the same time making some changes would have been a wonderful thing for chess. Well anyway thats past....

btw Anand has 5 world titles if you include the world cup win (similar format to WCC knock out)..2002 or something.

2000 Tehran Knockout , World cup (2002?) knockout, Mexico 2007 (undisputed) all play all tournament, Bonn match and now Sofia match.

If only FIDE had been a bit fairer in 2007 instead of seeding Karpov directly to the final it could have been 6 world titles.

As a chessplayer I can name the 13 World Chess Champions in order starting from Steiniz until Kasparov.....but then I have a lot of doubts about who is the World Chess Champion # 14.
Then I wonder what does a Chess Champion mean? Chess Champion for me is someone like Botwinik or Capablanca or Fischer or Kasparov.....but I find it difficult to call Kasimzhanov or Ponomariov or Halifman or Kramnik champions.
Thanks God Anand won the match, because I can say he is number 14...FIDE (good or bad) is trying to fix the mess Kasparov and Short created.
However I wonder,,,what would happened if Topalov won this match????
Rafael Llanos.
Sherman Texas

Excellent interview at The Hindu (an Indian newspaper). Anand talks about match strategy & tactics on both sides, reviews different stages of the match and also picks his favorite game.

http://beta.thehindu.com/sport/other-sports/article428341.ece?homepage=true.

a moment of nostalgia, watch Kaspy's eyes at sec. 06

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZqcT66Fkzw

Hmmm....Impressions from the Match:

Topalov completely lost the thread of the game in at least 4 of the games of the match:

2nd game: After Anand's 15. Qa3 Novelty, and especially after ....Ne3?

4th game: playing ...h6? at the worst possible time, and bring his Queen over to the a7 Square.

9th game: never really getting a sense of the position, and giving Anand several opportunities to win.

12th game: All of the prophylactic moves f3, g3 only ended up creating weaknesses on the Kingside. Then, Topalov just commits hari-kari by lashing out with exf5 and fxe4.

Anand played only slightly better than Topalov. His decision to play passive Slav systems leaves a strange impression. During the "Moscow marathon, both Kasparov and Karpov played "minimal" systems as Black. But at least they seemed to have the ambition of equalizing. Anand's openings as White were generally insipid.

It is NOT to their credit that 1.e4 was not played in the match--not even once. Frankly, 1.e4 suits BOTH Topalov's and Anand's styles better than the positions that result from 1.d4

Chess has certainly lost a lot when playing with and against 1.e4 was the touchstone of greatness.

If Anand is not able to step up his game vs. Carlsen, he is liable to lose, and the Match won't be all that close, either.

So, now we know: Anand> Kramnik> Topalov. Topalov has lost Matches to each of the others, while Anand has beaten both (defeating Kramnik in convincing fashion).

In the end, he picked apart the weaknesses of Topalov and Kramnik, even though Topalov, and especially Kramnik, have strengths that Anand can't quite match.

Of course, Kramnik seems to have lost some strength since his 2000 Match with Kasparov, but that is all part of the game.

Still, at least there are a couple of memorable games to come from this match, but I would not expect that the Book on the Match will be unduly thick, notwithstanding the length of the games. 5 Decisive games out of 12 is quite respectable.

Closing Ceremonies are set for 15:00 UTC on Thursday. If any "irregularities" in Anand's Doping test results are to be discovered by Danailov and Team Topalov, I expect that they would be revealed tomorrow, since I would also expect that the Anands will not be opting to take an extended vacation relaxing at some Black Sea spa in Varna.

Granted, it's an unlikely scenario that Danailov will conjure up some controversy or make some mischief, but if I were Anand, I would not begin to fully relax until the plane safely landed amidst the plains of Spain.

Danailov position in the Chess World has really worsened as a result of this defeat.

We, and the Bulgarian Bigwigs, now know that Topalov has tapped out, and reached his limits.
He can achieve maximal results in tournaments, and even now harbor reasonable aspirations to finish events ahead of both Anand and Kramnik. His rating will hover at or above 2800. However, in the final cruciable, he is "merely" one of the Top 4-5 players in the world, and it is now unlikely that he can lay claim to the mantle of being the World's best chessplayer.

It will be interesting to see if Danailov can succeed in resurrecting showcase events for the benefit of Topalov's career, or whether Bulgarian sponsorship $$ will dry up. Certainly, his prospects for influence in the realm of chess politics have not been enhanced. Perhaps Anand is fortunate, in that Danailov seems to (uncharacteristically) hedged his bets, given his ambitions to become leader of the European Chess Federation. Any reprise of a farce similar to "Toilet Gate" would have flushed Danailov's career prospects down the tubes. But Topalov's defeat might have just as effectively sealed Danailov's fate.

Frankly, I don't think that Kirsan's prospects were enhanced by Anand's victory. I would expect that Kirsan will unveil sponsorship of some new, grand chess extravaganza, in the attempt to keep support from defecting to Karpov's side.

@DOug: "In the end, he (Anand) picked apart the weaknesses of Topalov and Kramnik, even though Topalov, and especially Kramnik, have strengths that Anand can't quite match."

Will you care to elaborate?

http://www.sofiaecho.com/2010/05/12/899421_anand-defends-crown-against-topalov-in-world-chess-championship-2010

"Anand deserved to win the match. Vesko (Topalov) played this last game rather nervously. A draw would have been a good result for him but he made a few mistakes and the Indian exploited them," Topalov's manager Silvio Danailov told Dnevnik daily.

"We should concentrate on the positive sides of the match. This was a historic match for Bulgaria. The country was in the spotlight for millions of people worldwide who love the game. We should be happy and proud that we organised this event."

"Danailov position in the Chess World has really worsened as a result of this defeat."

To the contrary, the fact that the match was well organized, it was hard-fought and the winner was not the local chessplayer but his opponent is a very good result for Danailov in terms of his ability to organize top level events in chess. I guess at this point it is important for him to keep a good image as a promoter in order to raise votes for his ECU candidacy.

Congrats to Anand!

twenty years from now you will see many more Indian players due to the national frenzy there. Bobby did it for the USA in 1970, maybe we will have more Indian WChamps in the future. Is this a new dawn?

"How does the 8-player candidates tournament look like? Just two more spots remain (Topalov, Kramnik, Aronian, Carlsen, Kamsky, Gelfand, +2 others)? One of the spots to be decided in the ongoing gp event and the last one being the organizer's nominee? Kinda hard to keep track with so many rule changes."

I wonder how this will compare with San Luis 2005, and Mexico 2007?

Kramnik didn't play in 2005, Topalov didn't play in 2007, but Carlsen didn't play in either.
This Candidates' tournament looks to be stronger than the previous Tournament World Championships.
Gelfand has shown with his World Cup victory, and =2nd in Mexico that he can be a factor.

Kamsky has some time to prepare--I still think that he is better than his showing in the Match against Topalov, but his openings are the weakest of the group.

Aronian seems to be in his best form ever, but he's had problems with consistancy. Still, he seems to have improved over the past couple of years.

Radjabov seems to have the best chance of getting 2nd Place in the Grand Prix. He's currently in second place with 363.3. His two best scores (150 points in Sochi, and 153.3 points in Elista), effectively give him a 30 point cushion over Wang Yue. Gashimov is in 3rd Place, and addition 10 points behind. After 3 rounds of the Astrakhan Grand Prix tournament, Gashimov is co-leader at +1, so things are looking good for an Azerbaijani qualifying for the Candidates....

Ivanchuk, Jakovenko, and Leko are the Dark horses for the 2nd GP spot, while Mamedyarov and the rest are already Mathematically eliminated.

We will know soon enough who is the 2nd Place finisher in the GP.

Has the venue for the Candidates' Tournament been set yet? Obviously, that could give us some insight as to who would likely be the "Wild Card" invitee....
Last I read, Baku, Azerbaijan, is set to be the host of the Candidates' competition (whatever its Final Form), much to Aronian's discomfort. So, maybe BOTH Radjabov and Gashimov get to play in the Candidates, or perhaps Mamedyarov, who is the highest rated Azerbaijani amongst the three...

I DEFINITELY NEED HELP.

Bobby Fischer was definitely the Greatest Chess Player of all time because he worked it all out on his own energy without the help of a computer. Today all the great chess players owe their strength to the computer.

It is like chess in two different worlds. The chess of Bobby Fischer is a different world then played by Karpov Kasparov and Anand.

"Mehul | May 12, 2010 4:13 PM | Reply
Karpov and Kasparov STOLE the title which BELONGED to Bobby. Anand, after having defeated a Russian commi (Kramweak) and an Eastern European commi (Topaflop)has become Bobby's succesor...the WC title is only NOW legitimate.

This is what it looks like:

World Champion 1972-2008 - Bobby Fischer
World Champion 2008-2020 - Vishy Anand

If you believe any of the above, you need help."

Difficult subjects, who is the greatest player of all time, and the "legitimacy" of the WC title since 1975.

It's impossible to know who the greatest player ever was because not all players lived at the same time.

As for the "legitimacy" of the WC title since 1975, I guess "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." It all depends upon your beliefs.
The mess that FIDE made of things certainly didn't help.

I am sorry, I should have added that Karpov and Kasparov got great assistance from a group of GM's employed to assist them. Fischer did it all on his own. No real help from other GM's. He was so much stronger than the other GM's anyway. But all the openings and preparation had to be done over a board without the assistance of a computer to check out the moves.

Overall a player today is stronger than the old players because they have the first 20 moves so well worked out. Even Kamsky has problems because he left chess for a few years.

Another thing it is much easier and extremely faster to learn chess using a modern computer today then it was in the old days to sit with a board and wooden pieces and try to figure it all out.

Fischer was a chess genius all on his own. He may have had medical or psychological problems but in chess he definitely excelled.

Back in the old days it was always said that Karpov had the entire Russian nation helping him find innovative moves. Fischer had no one but himself.

When people speak of Karpov they are really talking about a big group of people. Not one person. Chess has changed tremendously since Fischer. It will never be the same again. Never will a new chess player have to struggle to learn to play better. A strong computer program will always be there to answer his early questions of what is the best move in a position. Imagine the work it could take a player like Fischer to figure out just one so called best move from one position. It could take months of work. Now the answer pops up on the screen in about one minute. Or a deeper answer in a little longer time for the computer to chomp on the position.

There is the Human Era of Chess up to Fischer and then began the era of the big corporation of people working in a huge team with one representative at the chess board. Fischer played Apples. Now it is Oranges.

Regarding the candidate event. According to the latest FIDE decision, this will be held in the *match format*, i.e., with quarter-finals, semi-finals, and finals. I do not know how many (or rather few) games per match will be played...

So, there will be NO candidate tournament, but candidate matches.

"Obviously those 16 games are very real and undeniable."

As much as I "love" nitpicking, I have to comment on this - as a description of the match between Kasparov and Kramnik in 2000.

Obivously Kasparov never had a 16th try to inflict a defeat on Kramnik, as the latters 2-0 lead in decisive games after the end of game 15 made the 16th game redundant.

Hence, "those 16 games" are completely "unreal" and 100% deniable. :o)

I appreciated the considerations from chess observer and Uff Da on the neverending "greatest ever" debates, and I'm curious about "reality check"'s explanation why the ratings of January 1st in the years of 2000 to 2004 were the only ones relevant for comparing distance between #1 and #2, when all of those years (but 2000) also had April 1st, July 1st and October 1st ratings. What was the _average_ distance between #1 and #2 in those years?

One doesn't need to be too clever to realize that Kasparov's relative dominance was moving in a quite consistent direction during the years 2000 to 2005. The biggest believers argue that Ksparov's last two events rehabilitated his superiority - "when he really tried his best again" - but I think simply looking at the declining rating lead is a better and much more objective measure.

I still think Kasparov is the "greatest ever" - whatever that means... ;o)

PS! Big congratulations to Awesome Anand!

I'm a bit sick & tired of almost everyone claiming ad nauseum in all the chess sites that fischer is of course the greatest of all time...like its some kind of gospel.

The facts are:
1. Fischer played only 1 WCh match. After that he chickened out of playing Karpov on flimsy excuses. He shouldn't even be put in the same sentence as giants like Capablanca, Kasparov, Anand, Karpov etc. who stood the gruelling test of time for many many years against different challengers. Climbing to the top is always easier than staying there.

If 1 time wonders are to be idolized, then maybe fischer is equivalent to kasindzhanov, ponomariov and khalifmann.. :-)

2. The reason for this absurd fascination with fischer is explained by the fact that the western world lacked a true super-GM against the soviets, and he did give a royal a&*-whopping to them, so they can identify with him and its very soothing and nostalgic.

Same with the Carlsen mania recently, but imho, until he wins the WCh, and defends it successfully a few times against top opponents, rated number one means just that and nothing more.

One thing is certain - there're enough patzers here, including the delusional GM Ian Rogers who wrote on Crikey "Anand beat local hero Veselin Topalov in the twelfth and final game to eke out a 6.5-5.5 win, an unlikely result in a match where he was outranked and often outplayed"

You can read it here - http://bit.ly/bE9k4m

Anand was the underdog going into this match, wah :-) That's new to me.

Anand got outplayed in the 12 match? Wah :-) That too is a new thing to me.

A player who won three games, almost won the G9 where he had Topalov scurrying for cover. Not to speak of G1 that he gifted Topa.

Maybe Ian Rogers was following a different match to what I was following.

Maybe Ian Rogers is a closet racist. Maybe. Just saying.

Ian Rogers has company here as well who somehow have a visceral hatred for Anand that sees them go great lenghts to avoid acknowledging that there might not be another player ever who can defeat Kramnik and Topalov in back-to-back WCC matches for, to do that you would need to be an universal player and not someone who plays in a particular style.

These are the same people who will dredge the 1995 Anand match with Kasparov to "prove" Anand is a wimp. These are the same people who will conveniently try to 'hide' how Kramnik stripped Kasparov's hide in 2000 when Kaspy could not win a single game in 16 games even if the 16th never got played.

Kasparov was lucky to not have contemporaries who breached 2800 like Anand has in Kramnik and Topalov, Kasparov had no one because these blokes were getting their feet wet in chess so to speak.

When Topalov hammered Kasparov into retirement in that last game Kasparov played, Kasparov knew this was the time to go lest another 2000 matchup destroy his legacy. He cut and ran when players began to get formidable on the chess circuit.

Next time any of you patzers want to bring up a young Anand at his 1995 match-up to show how bad he was compared to Kasparov, also bring up the Kramnik-Kasparov 2000 and be man enough to tell how Kasparov was another ordinary player once someone learned of his home prep like Kramnik learned of it when he was a second to Kasparov.

Now if there's any grace left, even a little, you could give some (even a little) due to a great player who's just won a WCC, nothwithstanding GMs like Ian Rogers and Spragett who cannot stomach the fact. Maybe they are old school racists. Or maybe they are not. But chances are they are.

Ian Rogers must be on meds.

Hey, what's gotten into Ian Rogers. Did ya read that?

I can't believe Rogers is in effect attributing Anand's win to the fact that Topalov did not want to play Rapids on the 13th. BTW what date did Topalov win his crown on in Argentina.

GM Rogers calls Anand, an over-the-hill player. Too funny to even laugh. Ian Rogers seems gutted at Anand's win over Topalov.

What's Ian Rogers on? Anyone knows. And this fella is a GM?

On Ian Rogers' article - surely the critics are missing the one salient point, it's supposed to be funny! Of course he's twisted the facts a little to make it fit the Rocky storyline. He doesn't consider Anand over the hill any more than he really believes in the "mortal enemies" bit here!

"Anand and Carlsen have previously worked together but now master and student may become mortal enemies.

Hang on – isn’t that exactly the plot of Rocky V?"

And Rogers had the honour of being personally criticised this time round by Danailov (for daring to suggest Chessdom might be a little biased!) and was also considered a foreign mischief-maker at the Topalov-Kamsky match (pointing out they were showing a video on how they were robbed in Elista etc.) - so no, he's not among the Topalov fan club :)

All this Kaspy talk,

what is going on here ?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoDTI_ZRMao

We are forgetting/underestimating another strength of Anand's which was shown in this World Championship. His diplomacy and polite demeanor.

Even Topalov and Danailov were forced to bite the bullet and be nice to Vishy. How many other champs would have dared to go into Danailov's backyard and play the match there? Yes, other guys are wimps. It's a paradox, Vishy is a nice guy but this enables him to venture into territory no one else would have the balls to. The Bulgarians treated him very well and with great respect. I cannot imagine Kramnik having the personality to get the same things done for him by the Bulgarians...in fact Kramnik would have been too much of a wuss to even enter Bulgarian air-space.

It should be a lesson to the other players in the elite that good behaviour does bring in big results. It's one of Anand's greatest strengths.

The people commenting on Chess Life Online -
http://main.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php&f=24&t=13478 , starting with comment 3 - reckon GM Rogers was pro-Anand all the way.
Maybe he's biased against both Indians and Bulgarians.

I have said this before, I'm saying it again.

Anand is the greatest ever in the kingdom of chess!

Interesting personal story putting Anand's achievement into perspective
http://in.news.yahoo.com/256/20100513/1691/top-the-man-with-the-maruti800_1.html

I find nothing wrong with the commentaries of Short and Rogers, especially their character assassinations of Anand. They were frank and to the point.

That said, Anand was lucky to win this match. In many games he had lost positions.

The European chess culture has allowed his chess to flower. That he resides in Spain explain this. It is clear that his home country with its ill developed chess platform cannot give Anand what the robust European chess culture can.

I am troll, lurking and watching, my ELO rating is less than 200, but can we please leave racism out of the equation? It is just that folks like Spraggett like Topalov more and indeed Spraggett criticized Rogers for favoring Anand. Spraggett actually wrote that "Topalov showed that he is infact just human in game 4," not that Anand did anything great or whether the fact (now) that Anand considers that as one of his best games in this match. No such considerations for Anand from Spraggett with constant digs about his physical shape and exercise. Maybe he just can't stand a guy with Kungfu Panda stomach winning the world championship. He was enthusiastic about first 11 games, promptly commenting how great Topalov was, win or lose, and just couldn't be bothered about commenting on game 12 so far. His commentary on game 9 was a riot. Imagine if the roles were reversed. There would be endless digs about physical shape.

As far as Susan Polgar, while I am grateful for the commentary, I just can't stand the fact she promptly keeps going back and edit what she wrote to show herself in better light. That is plain dishonest. Just let what you wrote stand, right or wrong.

As far as past legends and current ones, there were simply no computers analyzing at 3000 level like now, so all the discussions about who is the greatest are meaningless IMHO. Fight away with contorted logics, it makes great reading!

Anand is not a genius, he is just a natural. That is all. A natural will make blunders like he did in game 8, a genius wouldn't. Srinivas Ramanujan was a genius, Paul Erdos was a natural. I think we misuse the term genius a lot.

This Uncle Carl person is the same one who has posted under several names (Fiend etc) all that recurring nonsense about

1)Kasparov being a mediocre OTB player,

2)Kasparov not playing Shirov because he was "hiding" and afraid he would lose to him (which begs the question, why would he not play Shirov who never won a single game against Kasparov but play Kramnik who had an even score with him and knew some of his preparation and methods, but this never dawns on our genius),

2) that Anand, Topalov and Kramink were just getting "their feet wet in chess" while Kasparov was playing (never mind that when he retired Anand was 36 and Kramnik and Toplaov 31 and members of the very elite for more than 10 years)

3) that he was lucky they hadn't breached 2800 yet (Kramnik of course had breached it and couldn't again after Kasparov's retirement but facts don't matter, and for the others it was difficult when losing to Kasparov so frequently, check your database if in doubt)

4) that a loss to a 4-game rapid match to Karpov was proof he was weak (during that time period Kasparov was 82 points ahead in Elo rating, reaching 2851, a record which might not be broken ever and winning every tournament on earth)

5) that he picked Nigel Short for the 1993 match because he was weak (Short had qualified in the candidates matches by beating Karpov among others)

6) that Kasparov was afraid to play Ponomariov or Kasimzhanov (of course it was Ponomariov who didn't sign the contract)

7) that Ian Rogers is probably a racist

8) that all Australians are without a doubt racists

9) that Spraggett is a racist

10) that Short is a racist

and several other claims which I just don't have the time to find and mention.

So it is clear that we are dealing with someone who is

1) very very young, probably a teenager. His analogies, using Lincoln and baseball come straight from the school playground

2) new to chess and completely uninformed so he resorts to reading and quoting a Wikipedia entry (for example on Kasparov and Karpov) to find some, any supporting evidence when called on his ignorance (quoting the Wikipedia entry of the 4-game rapid match win of Karpov against Kasparov verbatim as proof of Kasparov's decline when he was actually performing better than ever speaks volumes!)

3) probably bipolar, judging by his intensity, sloppiness and style of argumentation.

4) bored by wrestling, so he switched to chess to show his friends he is not inferior intellectually and he should be popular too!

Now, I don't really mind a little ignorance and stubbornness by youngsters no matter how annoying, it's only natural for many to be like that, especially when defending newfound heroes. But that racism talk was really over the top and gave him away.

In short, this guy is not just an ignorant but very opinionated teenager.

He is a troll.

You've been warned!

A few Russian opinions:

Kasparov: http://www.sports.ru/others/chess/70641755.html (on "Echo of Moscow" Radio)

"Anand was the match favourite - he's a more versatile chess player. The struggle was tense but his opening preparation wasn't at its best. He didn't manage to get normal positions with black. As a result Topalov, overall, had the initiative. There was the feeling that he might succeed, but he didn't manage to do it. From the point of view of chess strength it's Anand who today deserves the title of World Champion."

GM Sergey Dolmatov: [Asked why Anand won so easily]

"I wouldn't say that he won easily, the match was a hard struggle. But Anand really did have the advantage in chess terms. He lost points throughout the match, but Anand simply plays better chess than Topalov. He's a more universal chess player, he can adapt to any opponent and play in an inconvenient manner for him. While Topalov is quite a straightforward player. In general he plays quite aggressive, but dirty, chess, taking too many risks. It could have ended with Topalov being crushed if Anand hadn't committed some inexplicable errors. I think that it's his age working against him. Anand played very slowly and was clearly weaker than 5 years ago".
http://www.irk.kp.ru/daily/24489.4/644384/

Sergey Smagin: http://www.sports.ru/others/chess/70626921.html

"In a sporting sense the struggle of the two GMs was interesting to follow because the games were battles. However, in terms of content I wasn't impressed. The encounter between Topalov and Anand didn't reach the level we're used to for world championship matches."

"It seemed to me that, having escaped by a miracle in the 9th game, Topalov believed in his star. He believed that he could wriggle out of any position. In the 12th game it came back to haunt him. It's just unacceptable to act so childishly."

"Topalov had to show that he played better. That's how it's been historically. Even if the champion and the challenger drew the crown stayed with the previous holder. And here Anand won on points. So that in that sense it was deserved. Besides, for me an important factor is that Anand's understanding of chess is an order higher than Topalov's. The Bulgarian can successfully perform in tournaments, but with such problems in chess understanding becoming World Champion is, more likely than not, simply impossible". [though, of course, he could easily have become world champion! I'm only the translator :)]

Finally a controversial article (much discussed on the Chesspro forum):
http://www.sports.ru/others/chess/70624402.html

It's entitled: "Anand won, chess lost". It's a wonderfully conflicted mishmash of pluses and minuses to Anand's victory, with the author playing devil's advocate for Danailov. Some snippets:

"Yesterday the highly respected editor of the PROsport newspaper said: 'For two years we've got a silent world champion - now it won't be possible to get a single normal interview'...
...
The thing is that Anand's a very passive figure. Which means that among the top 5 grandmasters he's about the worst option for promoting chess. So gentle and good - he sits around on his throne and... that's all. He plays rarely, doesn't strain himself in tournaments, getting by on genius and intuition (those aren't flaws, God forbid, we'd all like to!). But in contrast to Anand, Veselin and his manager shine very brightly"

"I don't idealise Danailov, that's impossible, he's specific and, to put it mildly, not the most pleasant of people. He behaved terribly [lit. 'like a pig'] in Elista and you can't get around that. But all that I want to say is that's he's a true professional. And that if he had the status of the "manager of the world champion", his opportunities for media promotion and the development of chess (and, one would hope, only for that) would be greater, and it'd be easier to attract money for the champion".

"Vishy is simply stronger. And that's not all - the chess crown has never been held by people who weren't great. With all respect to Vesko, he's still got some way to go. While Anand's great. And he kept the title by rights. All his 14 predecessors would no doubt have joyfully saluted their Indian successor. Viva, Vishy!"

By the way, the "outranked" part of Rogers's article isn't controversial. He meant ratings-wise.

Now the "outplayed" part... I have a hard time understanding what he meant, if it wasn't tonque-in-cheek.

He was clearly favoring Anand before the match but during it he seemed to get a little frustrated with Anand after Topalov solved his Ctalan problems and started to gain the initiative. So I don't know.

On being "lucky:"

I could never understand this "luck" argument. Two humans (and not computers) are playing, this means all warts associated with humans come in to play. One makes a mistake, the other takes advantage of it (or not). By this "luck" argument, one can argue that Kasparov was lucky against Anand in 1995 (Anand missed a "very obvious" win in an early game and instead of being up 2-0, he was only up 1-0 later, thanks to "luck." Now Kasparaov strikes back, and Anand goes down from then on because of "luck" (he missed an obvious draw you see!).

One guy is going to make "some" mistake which the other guy will take advantage of (or not). Otherwise, every game will be a draw....

And now Topalov with quite a long (and somewhat bitter) interview after the game, including: http://www.sportal.bg/news.php?news=237308

"So that the result was a failure, but the impressions it left weren't. Everyone can see that Anand didn't really win the match - I lost it. He simply defended well. I could have made a draw in the last game but that wouldn't really have made me the champion. I didn't want to play tie-breaks. With the white pieces I was pressing a lot while he only had a very good strategy in the last game. And that was the most inconvenient moment for me, as I had to press. And out of anger that this had happened and the match was going to tie-breaks, I forced things. And that turned out to be suicide."

"He missed only one win - in the ninth game, while I missed four. We destroyed his opening preparation in the first game and he played without openings".

"What guilt does your team bear?

- None. The team worked very well in the 12th game and had guessed what would happen in games 9-10. And that's a good indicator. As the winner Anand can say what he likes, but I think that my team outperformed his in opening preparation."

- It's believed that in the last game you committed three fatal errors - first refusing the draw and then making the two pawn moves. Why did you make them?

- As I said - I was trying to avoid a draw, as I didn't want tie-breaks. But I did it in anger because it was the first time in the match Anand and his team managed to neutralise my tactics. And it came at the worst possible moment.
[...]
- So it appears that nerves decided the match...

- The match was hard but as a whole I controlled it better. If you noticed the reactions of Anand he was nervous in many of the games. In that regard I think that overall I was better than he was. A sporting advantage, however, should be converted. And when you don't then it leads to moments like that one in the last game.

[At the end Topalov gives a summary of all the games]

"In the first Anand had prepared the Grunfeld Defence, but it crashed. As a result we killed his main trump card and won.

In the second he beat me. I equalised and was even better without any problems. But I made a few inaccuracies in a row and lost.

In the third I let a serious advantage slip.

In the fourth I'd planned to play a different variation, but changed it hours before the start. And we ran into the only good idea from Anand's team during the match. And he played very strongly, even though I defended well against the problems that he set me. But he won.

The fifth game was like the third. I had an edge but he defended well.

In the sixth I held and that game was at a very high level from both of us. Even though fans might not find it among the most interesting, it really was.

The seventh was perhaps the most interesting of the match. Ivan Cheparinov's idea was a new opening with the black pieces. Anand, however, defending brilliantly after a long series of moves.

The eighth was a weak game, and I should have won easily. But if he hadn't made an error on the 54th move maybe the win would have been problematic. I gave him a chance to defend while I should have finished it much earlier.

The ninth was long, hard and with many twists. It was the only game in which I was lucky.

In the tenth I again had an edge, but let it slip in one move.

In the eleventh I outplayed him somewhat, but perhaps my advantage wasn't enough to win."

As we're talking about Vishy's great predecessors, a wonderful story about Tal, as related by Hort in his book "Facing the World Champions", and reviewed by John Watson here: http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/john-watson-reviews/history-and-general-works-part-1.-john-watson-book-review-96

"Before his [i.e Hort's] first game, with Tal in Moscow 1963, Tal disappears and doesn't appear at the board. Everyone is panicky, and there are even radio announcements telling citizens to call in if they locate Tal. With minutes to spare, Tal shows up drunk and almost falls asleep. He disappears, returns shaking, and can't even light his cigarettes. For all that, he manages to struggle to a draw. Later Tal is socialising with Hort and tells him that the Russians in desperation had dragged him out of sight during the game and doused him with freezing water!"

If ever there was an unsportsmanlike, undeserving jerk than it has to be this bitter man who thought he could do no wrong and still thinks he did no wrong. Topalov.

I admired Topalov before this. Not anymore, ever.

Go Anand. You don't have to keep speaking well of your opponent after this. But you will as you are cut from a different cloth.

So petty that it confounds me even.

Anand interviewed by The Hindu newspaper where he says "I misjudged Topalov".

http://beta.thehindu.com/sport/other-sports/article428341.ece?homepage=true.

Topalov talks like he played - over-confident. He sees his own strengths e.g. sharp opening prep, but doesn't acknowledge Anand's, e.g. that Anand didn't have to go into sharp opening prep territory because he scored well enough from balanced positions.

Topalov is instructive in his bitterness.

Topalov - "In the first Anand had prepared the Grunfeld Defence, but it crashed. As a result we killed his main trump card and won"

Topalov - "He missed only one win - in the ninth game, while I missed four. We destroyed his opening preparation in the first game and he played without openings".

In some ways it proves that Anand after being outprepared in the openings as when Topalov says the above actually had to play supremely over the board to win. This makes his win all the more remarkable. Didn't Anand play Grunfeld Defence later?

Which 4 wins did Topalov miss? Is he hallucinating?

Topalov is so cocky. Is it any wonder most find him obnoxius.

Are we sure that Topalov interview is "real" ?

After seing the way he acted AFTER the last game, I have a hard time believing he would sound so sore.

Topalov's definition of "wins" are somewhat different what most of us are familiar with. He is talking about those long grinds which a Karpov or Kramnik excel in - but they are not very easy to do, its not like he missed his advantage in one move (unlike Anand in game9)

Lovely to read mishanp's translations. How bravely he posts them! He does not worry about copyright violation complaints?

We all now Topalov's Elo, and his Ego also (still) seems to be at least 28,000 on a scale from 0-30,000 . Maybe he really thinks that he was much better to (almost) winning in all those Slav endgames - that would be consistent with his statements at the post-game press conferences. Who am I to tell, but objectively he may have been only optically better, at least I didn't see variations leading to a forced win.

Even if he missed some wins, he could learn one thing from his American fangirl Susan Polgar: "Win with grace, lose with dignity." Even harder for him to do, he could learn the same thing from Kramnik (his comments after the match with Anand).

BTW, there will be an interview with Anand at Chessvibes (forthcoming, video currently being edited), but Topalov refused to give them an interview - "possibly" related to their critical coverage before the match (Sofia rules controversy, Volcanogate).

And regarding Sergiev: As Metis-Paris keeps asking everyone that question, what's Sergiev's Elo? "he [Anand]'s far from his best years ..." - then what would have been the result of the match if Anand was still at his very best? "Very best" sensu Sergiev - e.g. Kramnik said that Anand is at the moment playing better than ever, and we all know Kramnik's Elo ... .

If Topalov is right in his assessment that his team destroyed Anands openings and Anand played without openings for the whole match then how could Anand cope with Topalov's openings? With merely over the board skills?

Anand seemed to be taking more time over the board in every game so this might well be true that Anand was left with only OTB skills to negotiate Topalov.

The official site is now broadcasting the closing ceremony, but the audio isn't working for me.

Wow..Topalov talks so much after he loses. I got some respect for him after there was a brief hint that Topalov was a nice person in this match -- analyzed the game shortly after the 12th game. Now after this interview.... back to square 1. How nice it would have been if he had simply said "I had my chances, but Anand was better". He fails to realize the difference between "having an advantage" and "winning the game". In most club tournaments thats the lamest excuse kids give after losing/drawing a game "I was winning at one point". No dignity what so ever.

Wonder what all he would have said if he had won. I am glad atleast for that sake Anand won.

A bit sad that the audio didn't work. But, of course, these things are always very predictable, so I doubt we missed anything of consequence.

Apropos Topa's interview, I recall a saying "If you make excuses for your weaknesses, they become yours forever". Instead of acknowledging this weaknesses and fixing them to add to his strength, he is making a case for the reasons of his loss.

I see parallels with his decision to persist with the comedy of following Sofia rules despite looking silly. If tiring Anand was the idea, he could have played to bare kings without the charade of involving arbiter in it. It is as if Anand was trying to shy away from the board and Topa/Danailov intended to harness him to the chair and make him play against his wishes.

Feeling that you have a win is not enough. You have to win in the end. I guess Topa's future opponents should present him a deal that he can have better position on the board though in the end they win, if that all he is after.

As another poster said, I am even more glad that Topa did not win because I can't even imagine his and Sergiev's responses had Anand lost. I was beginning to feel for him after his seemingly sportsmanly conduct after his resignation and also in the press conference.

http://beta.thehindu.com/sport/other-sports/article429111.ece

http://beta.thehindu.com/sport/other-sports/article428341.ece

I think as on the Friday before the match Topalov must have given a whole series of interviews yesterday (or perhaps today). Here's a similar one for sportal.bg (translated by Google): http://tinyurl.com/358bgdo

It makes his thinking in the last round a little clearer. He didn't exactly want to avoid tie-breaks (though he admits they're not his strength) - but wanted to at least make the game long and hard so that Anand would be more tired. That still sounds a bit crazy when there'd be another day's rest.

One funny detail at the end. Complaining that now with Anand they won't be able to make changes in chess, he adds: "We are fighting to impose the "Sofia rules". Everybody is clear that they are positive, but there is envy, because they do not say "Moscow" for example!"

Oh, and the opening is good:

"- Vesko it appears that the number 13 is hounding you?
- No, no, that's not the case. Moreover, in Elista it was Friday 13th."

And regarding Sergiev: As Metis-Paris keeps asking everyone that question, what's Sergiev's Elo? "he [Anand]'s far from his best years ..." - then what would have been the result of the match if Anand was still at his very best? "Very best" sensu Sergiev - e.g. Kramnik said that Anand is at the moment playing better than ever, and we all know Kramnik's Elo ... .

I see you also noticed...quite amusing. It is not as if your elo has everything to do with how right /wrong you are.

wonderful interview with Vishy - on all his games in the match
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2010/05/exclusive-anand-video-by-europe-echecs.html

I am sure Magnus Carlsen was following the match. I wonder what he is thinking now?
My guess: Tough guys, but I bet I can handle either of them.

REMATCH ???

“We are proud of Vesko (Veselin) Topalov. We are a bit sorry he is not first. We are ready for a return match,” the prime minister said.

Next, on to the Carlsen era?

Funny how everybody thinks that Carlsen will be Anand next challenger. Pretty tough competition he has to get rid off first. I think Kramnik will be Anands next challenger.

Don't know what the Candidates matches will finally look like, but Carlsen will most likely have to beat 2 out of Kramnik/Topalov/Aronian to make it through, which won't be easy.

The prior probability of any one of these 4 making it through is likely to be less than 40% for even the best of them.

On a separate note, can someone statistically inclined help figure out the following:

If the "matches" are short ones with 4, 6, 8 games for the QF, SF, and Final respectively (though it may even be 4, 4, 6 or 4, 4, 8), then do these short matches give a better statistical probability of the "best" player making it through relative to picking the winner of a double round robin candidates tournament? I am especially worried that many of these mini-matches will go to rapids which are more of a lottery.

My own preference would be for a double round robin candidates tournament followed by an 8-game match between the top 2 (with draw odds given to the winner of the candidates tournament - so we do away with rapids). This way the final candidate will have to demonstrate superiority over the entire fray in the tournament and also head to head with the other top 2 finisher. Also, there are no rapids in this format!

Don't see why this can't be done since there is plenty of time for this - hold the tournament in late 2010 and the Candidates Final Match in 2011 with the Championship match in 2012.

I think the likelihood of Carlsen winning the right to challenge Anand in 2012 is less than 50% and probably less than 25%. If it -were- a tournament, maybe he'd have a good shot, but even short matches put him at a disadvantage because he is so reliant on concentration and "Sitzkrieg".

Tha favorites in that format have to be Kramnik and Topalov (because of their greater match experience and opening knowledge), and perhaps Aronian or Ivanchuk, if one of them goes on one of their terrifying hot streaks. Carlsen would be better off with a tournament, since he's likely to bury the weaker opponents but fail to win against the elite.

Anand's next challenger will most likely be either Kramnik or Carlsen. However, I will be very glad if Gelfand or Aronian make it since they qualified without taking advantage of FIDE's rule change in the middle of the cycle.

Can somebody see this photo and tell me where is Ilyumzhinov’s right hand gone?

Can somebody see this photo and tell me where is Ilyumzhinov’s right hand gone? http://photo.chessdom.com/albums/userpics/10025/normal_P1260321.jpg

I also think Gelfand has a fair chance. He is always underestimated. Remember the last chance he had at title he almost got it, came 2nd at Mexico 2007 with an incredible performance and everybody was surprised. He also qualifed to Mexico 2007 with a string of match wins. The next chance he got was at the world cup to qualify and he won it. So in all, Gelfand has it all set up and is well prepared. I will not be surprised one bit if he is the challenger.

Topy gave his interview on May 13th, that explains why it might be considered as having gone awry for him!

I don't really see Gelfand as a particularly likely winner of a match cycle involving Topalov and Kramnik. Certainly possible; he has "class", in the sense that he's a perfectly adequate Linares participant, performed well in Mexico, Etc. But where the Top 5 (Carlsen, Anand, Topalov, Kramnik, and your favorite of Ivanchuk, Shirov, Aronian and Grischuk) are all very special players, Gelfand doesn't show that very often.

What World Champion is stylistically equivalent to Gelfand? With the above, you can name someone instantly (and have a way to argue about it); Shirov-Tal, Kramnik-Karpov or Smyslov, Topalov-Alekhine, Anand-Botvinnik or Lasker, Carlsen-Petrosian.

I don't see it, although I have an enormous respect for Gelfand as a chess player. He's a top class player but he's merely a member of the world elite. He just isn't in the discussion for "best".

Anand can say to Carlssen: "Hey, I always beat you when I played you."
Just like dutch tennsplayer Jan Siemerink (now daviscup coach) can say this to Roger Federer, its is 1-0 between them...

It's in Bulgarian and Russian (an interview with Ilyumzhinov)... but Bulgarian TV have a long report from the closing ceremony - with sound :) Although it does seem the film crew got there just after they'd given Anand the prize... http://bnt.bg/bg/sport/view/28555/oficialno_zakrivane_na_macha_za_svetovnata_titla_po_shahmat

Another Anand interview with a German newspaper, some new stuff mostly on the lighter side (and the answers are better than the questions!?):
http://www.fr-online.de/top_news/2642240_Schach-Weltmeister-Anand-Es-war-ein-Wellental.html

Q According to rumors the Bulgarian side paid 100,000 Euro to get Rybka 4 for their match preparation. Reportedly that's the reason why Vasik Rajlich puts it on the market only after the WCh.
"I cannot comment on this. During the match I don't read any chess news, and my team rather doesn't let me know such stories. Now it would of course be interesting to know if this is really true. Right now I don't care much because I won the match."

Q In the world rankings you gained a few points and narrowed the gap with Carlsen and Topalov. Is your next aim to become #1 again?
"My next aim is to make a few months holidays."

Q You turned ten years older in the last game [apparently he said so elsewhere]. If you play two more such exciting WCh games you will be 70. Do you now think about retirement?
"Am I Greek and can retire that early? If I feel like today, I will be only 27 after two more such games - admittedly, Magnus Carlsen would still consider me quite old (laughs)!"

I also think Gelfand has a fair chance. He is always underestimated. Remember the last chance he had at title he almost got it, came 2nd at Mexico 2007 with an incredible performance and everybody was surprised. He also qualifed to Mexico 2007 with a string of match wins. The next chance he got was at the world cup to qualify and he won it. So in all, Gelfand has it all set up and is well prepared. I will not be surprised one bit if he is the challenger.

***
I find this amusing. Gelfand lost a candidates match to Karpov in the Karpov v. Kamsky cycle (the first time a sitting champion had to requalify for a match -- Karpov won).

Ponomariov is ridiculed...yet Gelfand is treated as a legitimate WC finalist. Yet their World Cup match could have gone either way.

Portisch was a similar dark horse candidate all through the 60s, 70s and into the 80s. You could name 10 others -- Polugaevsky, Geller, etc.

Now, if such dark horse folks had actually won the cycle to qualify and (god forbid) won the match...then maybe folks would be less into the cult of personality and more aware that any of quite a number of players -- if they make it to the finals -- have the ability to win the title.

Including (drum roll): Khalifman and Ponomariov.

Paraphrasing Kasparov:

We'd have a lot of champions if all you had to do was win mini matches against Akopian and Nisipeanu. Ponomariov is a bit different; he's a legitimate elite player (if not a regular at Linares) and he had to beat Ivanchuk to win his title, at least. Kasim, too (he beat Adams, who isn't chopped liver).

Still, Khalifman? He made it to the finals because half the real elite players skipped Vegas and the remainder paid the price for playing (the format made the results as close to a coin toss as possible). It isn't that Khalifman isn't a strong player, but at no time has he ever had a legitimate claim to being among the strongest dozen players in the world. In a reasonably long match, Topalov would probably score 60-70%.

Kasparov was right when he said there were eight or ten "real" chess players in the world. Maybe a dozen, now.

Indeed! I hope that any bitterness being displayed is a phase of the process of coming to terms with this.

I appreciate the way Anand has handled the ups and downs in his long career. I find a lot to learn from his refreshingly positive and yet humble attitude.

***
Those who think Anand is all politeness and sweetness and light now

should remember his unsportng comments after his KO loss to Karpov: essentially, he said "I do not recognze him as champion" Of course, had Anand won, all would be sweetness and light

I suspect that if he had been on the other side of a game 12 whooping, that same phrase would pop out of his mouth

PS For three yrs in the KO the only player to defeat Khalfman was Anand (2x)

"As for Uncle Carl ask your mama about him"

Gotcha! That was easy. Too easy!

[quote]It's entitled: "Anand won, chess lost".[/quote]

What?? Outrageous!

Now the money gready politicians will be working overtime to make sure their money yielding candidate win in the next match. First they would arrange big money match to lure the chess king to the table. With OTB attempt to throw Anand out of throne next to impossible, it is possible they will employ off the board cheating tactics like go as a bookie to buy seconds (even if caught, blame will not be on his opponent), undetected transmitting of moves (a civilized system of proven until guilty will come in handy), stealing preparations from computers (no need to involve opponent) etc. At the end of the day you might conclude it was the psychological pressure that the champion was not able to withstand but in reality something could have gone on behind the scenes. Both the players could be completely innocent of all this yet foul play could have decided the match. This is why I hardly give any consideration to scores from private matches where there is no neutral party to monitor the situation.

But look at it this way. "Anand won, Chess won!" If Anand thwarts all the off the board attempts, he will remain as chess king, and the people will keep making attempts after attempts, and thus more money for chess!

Extraordinary prepation from Topalov in this match but an extraordinary effort from Anand to neutralize it. Anand is playing at extraordinary level. All he need is to be a little bit more careful on the off the board side in the future.

It is very likely that the history books will leave out the "You didn't win, I lost" rhetoric.

Though the lesson to be learned for me is => for my next tournament, if I feel I'm losing, I'm dropping my queen ASAP and then telling him that THAT was why I lost.

Here is chessvibes 28.5 min video interview with Vishy Anand

http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/i-honestly-thought-he-had-gone-nuts-interview-with-the-world-champion/#more-25260

First, a big Thank you to mishanp for the quality of your reporting. You could open your own blog, but I'm sure Mig is quite happy to go on hosting you for the while being! ;))

Then, one has to feel (a little) sorry for Topalov, however classless his interviews are. He does sound pathetic, but he has some mitigating circumstances:
a) Danailov: Topalov is probably parrotting the stupidities his manager whispers into his ears, with the purpose either to blow up his ego or (Don King style) to market future events by grandstanding imaginary bitter rivalities.
b) cultural differences: the kind of fair play discourse Anand so elegantly masters isn't as much valued in most societies as it is in anglo-saxon countries and ex-British colonies.

But what matters really isn't the Bulgarians' reaction, but that we have a very worthy WC and an exciting challengers' cycle in front of us! Who knows what would have happened if Danailov had firmly put put his hands on the title...

Now this is modesty from Anand when he says he is was not necessarily the favorite in the rapids in his video interview on chessvibes. Even if he is right in his assessment, he could have easily said "I think I may be the slight favorite" and no one would could have argued about that. This is what separates Anand from others. Through out the interview, Anand had only nice things to say about Topalov and his team that he is a fighter etc. etc. He also said nice about Kramnik that he learnt from his play in the Elista match. And so far we have not heard anything from Topalov other than "I missed chances, I could have played better". No word of appreciation -- a problem that Metis-Paris also seems to have.

Denial <-------- X marks the spot.
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance

Reflections of both Anand and Topalov. NY Times: http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/day-after-championship-victor-and-vanquished-reflect-on-the-match/

So many interviews, and still something new (if journalists ask the right questions!?) - this is from an Anand interview with another German newspaper:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/sport/972/511084/text/

Q Magnus Carlsen told us before the match that, according to his impression, you are well-prepared. But how did he know? Was there again a training session as before the games against Kramnik?
"Hmmm, yes ["Äh, ja"] Magnus helped me a bit. We are in touch, and it was nice to get some tips from him."

Q Carlsen ... could become your next challenger.
"Magnus'play last year was impressive. I know that he has very good chances for the next match. He will make one step after the other. But currently I am not in the situation to think about my next opponent. First I need holidays."

I think fiend has lost his marbles.

Some childish word play:

Veselin Topalov =
eVil slave, no Top
slap To love Vein

Viswanathan Anand =
wAnt a dash in a Vann?

...oh, forgot "evil plot no save"

Anyone else think that Topalov is a spitting image of Jesus Quintana from The Big Lebowski?

Especially when it's only other people's religion, caste etc.

@Mahapandit: Good post. I thought the same when I read those Brahmin comments.

I wonder if this

> even if he had descended from Genghis Khan

is a petty little blow against Kirsan.

To Mishanp - it might have to do with the puritanical approach to religion and often ritualisitc, among Iyer bramins (mostly most brahmins). The discourses they follow, a certain detachment to worldliness instilled right from the time of their thread cermony where the child is sent on ritualistic begging as a person of the world etc. Many other things too. more prominently practiced among them than others. Should make very interesting study to pursue from an approach point. From what I have seen the Iyer brahmins and some of other brahmins are more likely to propound this kind of philosophy. I still find difficult to understand their pursuit.

To others - People go all defensive (or offensive) the moment brahmin is mentioned.

The modesty trait may not be exclusive to brahmins, but it is prominent among them, especially south-indian brahmins (not all but most), but it is very certainly to be found more consistently among them. Nobody will grudge the Iyer brahmin community their stupendous success in academics, the arts, the literature and least of all the string of Nobel Prize winners they produced as a community.

Since I come from a business community with ancestry from Gujarat and have lived and partly studied among the Iyers and even worked with them in infotech I thought it is important to salute them for their work ethic and humility. Anybody have problems with that? It is my choice to note that particularly after someone mentioned that Anand got his modesty and fairplay from being an Indian in an ex-British colony.

Any problem with acknowledging the minority Iyer brahmin community for what they have achieved in chess or whatever? Any problem with any community wanting to celebrate its achievements brahmin or otherwise? Do people want to actively not acknowledge their merits and deliberately play down or even obliterate their achievements? Anything wrong with any community acknowledging contribution from within their community like mine is proud about its business acumen?

I have learnt a lot from them after my stint at IIT. I find nothing wrong in taking inspiration.

Lets keep this caste garbage out of these forums please. I see enough of it in daily life as it is!

One question :

What means "lyer" in "lyer brahmins"?

Thank You.

The whole discussin about Gazza-Kramnik-Anand-Topa reminds me of rock pap er scissors game.

Kasparov - Scissors
Kramnik - Rock
Anand - Paper

Topalov out of their league..

Iyer Brahmain,duh! He listed a non-vegetarian item as one of his favorite Indian foods, in the post-WCC video interview with Fontaine! For a long while, he was mentioned as a vegetarian in the press. May be a recent convert.

A non-vegetarian iyer brahmin is an auximoron!! Vegetarian Leko is far more a brahmin than Anand !!

I noticed how he hesitated considerably before coming out with his NV taste. Very possible his parents (traditional Iyer brahmins by all looks on the video)wouldn't think highly of him for going open with his non-vegetaianism if they already knew of it, or were quite shocked if they didn't know of it. SAD. 100% sure in his parents house he wouldn't be asking for those non-veg items!!

lol. multiple id clones Harish Patel, Mahapandit, Johhny. list likely to increase with more clones.

Iyengars are vaishnavites and followers of Ramanujacharya (a 11th century philosopher) and Iyers are shaivites and followers of Shankaracharya (the 8th century philosopher). I believe Iyengars broke away from the mainstream Tamil/South Indian brahmin community a millenium ago. As one myself, I can say that education among both Iyers and Iyengars is highly valued and both communities have produced many fine academics (for example, the mathematician Ramanujan (Iyengar), and the Nobel laureates CV Raman and Chandrasekar (Iyers). I enjoy many non-vegetarian dishes and my family doesn't care (it depends on how liberal your family is!), though I'm sure my grandparents might have raised objections:)
On a different note, anyone have an idea how much the seconds get paid? Do they get a %age of the prize money? I would assume a more accomplished second like Kasimdhzanov (versus a less experienced player like Ganguly) would be paid much more?

Lets discuss the blacks and whites and how the whites are supposed to be in an advantageous position. And about the struggle of the blacks in their quest to get equality. Anyone??

"The turning point in my career came with the realization that Black should play to win instead of just steering for equality." - Bobby Fischer .

Spitting coffee !!

Correct and nice quote, Ovidiu :)

Thank you for all your effort mishanp

For all the people commenting on "missed wins" etc. (mainly Mr. Topalov), here is something I just came across:

http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/malcolmpein/looking-back-at-anand-topalov-game-7

It seems the computers have concluded that 42.Qa4 was winning the endgame for Anand in Game 7. Of course, the ensuing lines are something no human would dream of over the board. (Unlike in Game 9.)

It just shows how futile it is to count 'missed wins' and create an alternate history where they led to actual wins. The whole point of a chess match is that people don't play perfectly. Why would someone deserve to win if they did not find the missing line? Or why don't they deserve to lose if they made a blunder?

People have been talking about Topalov's moves 31-32 in Game 12 as if they are terrible and obvious blunders. This sort of opinion gets repeated a few times and then becomes conventional wisdom. But how bad are those moves exactly? Several analyses said that 34...Qe8 was the only move that would give black winning chances, and gave it a ! or a !!. Topalov said that he had missed 34...Qe8, and Anand said that if he had missed Qe8, he would have been WORSE (but not losing). So that would explain Topalov's remark that he took a risk with his moves 31-32 -- he saw a reward for it because he had missed 34...Qe8.

People at the Topalov's level play risky-looking moves you and I would never play, because they calculate all the lines and trust in their calculations. How many people would have seen Qe8? Given that Topalov missed it, I trust not very many. This is not the sort of thing that deserves to be called a 'chess-cafe move'. Or a 'blunder that has no place in a World Championship'. Or an 'Elo 1800 level move'. (Whoever pulled that number out of his ass is obviously far lower than 1800 himself.)

"And when he instantly played 30...f5 at that moment I had more than half an hour left, but for some reason I immediately played 31. exf5. Of course, it was suicide."

The "some reason" is impt. What's that "some reason"? He had reason. Spell it out. Reason = Topalov could not see Qe8?

Ptr: Valid. I dunna think it was blunder like it was losing the very next move the way he is trying to make it sound. It ended 25 moves later, a long way afterwards.

Same reason Topalov should come out and specify which winning lines he aw in games that were drawn and were said to be dead draws halfway at several sites commenting.

Topalov probably feels he was winning because he was trying to win when Anand was defending with black. The pushing for win created an illusion of winning. Case for a shrink.

I would say Topalov's play during game 12 and his post-match interviews have one thing in common: lack of respect for the opponent.

Regardless of how the resulting position has to be evaluated, 31.ef5: and 32.fe4: gave Anand _exactly_ what he wanted, yet Topalov played both moves quickly (less than a minute for 32.fe4:). If he had taken more time, he may have seen 34.-Qe8 - again, I think it wasn't THAT difficult to spot. Every beginner is told to consider "what is threatening?" before making a move ... .

After the match, "I committed suicide" (correct) and "I missed four wins" (exaggerated, to say the least) are part of the same communication strategy "Anand didn't win the match, I lost it" - so no credit given to the opponent. Either Topalov was still under emotions "the day after", or it was a deliberate choice discussed with Danailov, and possibly coordinated with Sergiev. In the latter case, it seems that "they" focus on Topalov's most fervent fans, and don't care much about the opinion of the rest of the world?

Can two instances be equated with certainity as in "that was mindless, hence so was this"? That does not sound very clever.

How can I and you be so sure? Check my additional comment above about the "gone nuts" thing.

In that link was Topalov playing Carlsen in a WCCh decider?

"Can two instances be equated with certainity as in "that was mindless, hence so was this"? That does not sound very clever."

You said it was hard to believe, I thought an example of it happening previously would make it easier to believe.

But I'm not really into all this splitting of hairs. Topalov said it was suicidal. Anand said it was nuts. I haven't seen a single expert commentator defend the decision to take on f5. What more is there?

Do we try to analyze what happened at the neuron level, in order to pinpoint the exact transmitter that was malfunctioning at the time of the crime? I'm out. In my book, exf5 was a clear mistake (because it led to a lost position) based on rubbish decision-making. You are of course free to disagree, but I would be anxious as hell if you were playing on the same team as me.

Aaaaaarrrggggghhhhhh!
This is the height of intellectual sophistication.

Hey didn't Topalov say he made his own luck when asked about his escape from certain death in game 9?

Now he goes around crying Anand did not win it but he lost it.

What a f**** hypocrite.

The best point was made by Anand in the chessvibes interview: if he didn't find Qe8 he would be worse but not lost, but if he did then Topa would be toast. hence it behooved topa to be far more careful in that position - instead he played ef5 in a minute's thinking time.

With roughly 30 min left for the 10 moves for the first time control, I think exf5 is a kind of move that would have worked against any player other than Anand. So in that sense bad choice that Topalov played it against Anand.